In order to get (more) independent from foreign energy sources, both politicians and companies often proposed the expansion of the "green" energy sector and the providing of more funding for research and development. However, big companies - who should be among the most important recipients of such a policy - are obviously getting more and more frustrated over policy gridlock in this field.
According to this article, companies like Microsoft, who are (for whatever reason ... it would also be really interesting to discuss this, but of course it is not our topic) interested in furthering the development of "green" energy or at least inclined to participate in the research process, are threatening to "abandon" Washington D.C. due to the overwhelming influence of the fossil-fuel industry on the decision-makers.
The article claims that Washington is "broken" with regards to environmental policy, a claim that we have often heard and discussed in our class. I think that this development is a conspicuous example of a lot of problems we have discussed, as we are confronted with lobbyism by powerful stakeholders resulting in gridlock with the consequence that important decisions are not made.
I would be really interested in how people who think that gridlock is actually only "the Constitution working as it has been intended" defend such a development, in which money clearly is used to prevent necessary and important policy changes.