SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
energy
International Poll Shows Strong Support for Arms, Energy Embargo on Israel
"The people have spoken and they refuse to be complicit," said one campaigner. "Across continents, ordinary citizens demand an end to the fuel that powers settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide."
Aug 07, 2025
Large percentages of people in five nations want arms, fuel, and machinery embargoes on Israel in response to its obliteration and starvation of Gaza, a poll published Thursday revealed.
The survey—which was conducted last month by Pollfish for the Global Energy Embargo for Palestine and endorsed by Progressive International—queried people in Brazil, Colombia, Greece, South Africa, and Spain about whether their governments, fuel companies, weapons makers, and heavy machinery manufacturers should stop, reduce, continue, or increase business with Israel.
Nearly two-thirds of Spanish respondents said they strongly support or support their government taking action "to reduce trade in weapons, fuel, and other relevant goods to pressure Israel to end its military actions in Gaza." In Greece, 63% back an embargo, while 35% oppose it. Sixty percent of Colombians, 58% of South Africans, and 48% of Brazilians strongly or somewhat support punitive sanctions on Israel.
Conversely, 27% of Brazilians said they do not support or strongly oppose an embargo on Israel, while 20% of South Africans, 14% of Colombians and Greeks, and 12% of Spaniards feel the same.
Support for ending or reducing weapons transfers was strong in all five nations, with 76% of Colombian respondents, 75% of Spaniards and Greeks, 66% of South Africans, and 59% of Brazilians favoring such action.
A majority of respondents in all five countries also said that companies providing arms, fuel, or heavy machinery to Israel "should be held responsible for how those products are used in Gaza."
📊 New poll: People across the world say companies selling weapons, fuel, or heavy machinery to Israel should be held accountable for how those products are used in Gaza.🇪🇸 76%🇬🇷 71%🇨🇴 70%🇧🇷 62%🇿🇦 60%#EnergyEmbargoNow #NoFuelForGenocide@progintl.bsky.social
[image or embed]
— Global Energy Embargo For Palestine (@palenergyembargo.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 2:33 AM
"The people have spoken and they refuse to be complicit," Global Energy Embargo for Palestine campaigner Ana Sánchez said in a statement.
"Across continents, ordinary citizens demand an end to the fuel that powers settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide," Sánchez added. "No state that claims to uphold democracy can justify maintaining energy, military, or economic ties with Israel while it commits a genocide in Palestine. This is not just about trade; it's about people's power to cut the supply lines of oppression."
The poll was published 670 days into Israel's U.S.-backed assault and siege on Gaza, which has left at least 226,600 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and hundreds of thousands more starving amid increasingly deadly famine as Israel blocks aid from entering the embattled enclave.
The far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a fugitive from the International Criminal Court wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—is moving ahead with plans for the "full conquest," reoccupation, and ethnic cleansing of the strip, which U.S. President Donald Trump wants to transform into "the Riviera of the Middle East."
Israel's conduct in the war is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case brought by South Africa and supported by around two dozen nations. Among the countries in the survey, Colombia—which severed diplomatic ties with Israel in May 2024—Spain, and Brazil have formally joined or signaled their intent to join South Africa's case.
The ICJ also found last year that Israel's occupation of Palestine is an illegal form of apartheid.
"What the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinian people is not war, it is genocide," Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said in February 2024 shortly after recalling his ambassador to Tel Aviv. "If this isn't genocide, I don't know what is."
On Thursday, European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera—who is Spanish—told Politico, "If it is not genocide, it looks very much like the definition used to express its meaning."
"What we are seeing is a concrete population being targeted, killed, and condemned to starve to death," Ribera said. "A concrete population is confined, with no homes—being destroyed—no food, water, or medicines—being forbidden to access—and subject to bombing and shooting even when they are trying to get humanitarian aid. Any humanity is absent, and no witness[es] are allowed."
Of the surveyed nations, all but Greece support an arms embargo on Israel. The other four countries took part in last month's Hague Group emergency ministerial conference in Colombia, which was organized by Progressive International and ended with the publication of a joint action plan for "coordinated diplomatic, legal, and economic measures to restrain Israel's assault on the occupied Palestinian territories and defend international law at large."
"The message from the peoples of the world is loud and clear: They want action to end the assault on Gaza—not just words," Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler said in a statement accompanying the new survey's publication.
"Across continents, majorities are calling for their governments to halt arms sales and restrain Israel's occupation," Adler added. "That's why states are coming together through the Hague Group to take concrete measures toward accountability. It's time for others to follow their lead."
Meanwhile, a survey published Tuesday by the Israel Democracy Institute revealed that 8 in 10 Israeli Jews "are not so troubled or not at all troubled personally" by "the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza."
Eight people, including a child, starved to death in Gaza that day, on which local officials said that more than 80 Palestinians were killed by Israel's bombs, bullets, and blockade.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump EPA Moves to Cancel $7 Billion in Solar Grants for Low- and Middle-Income Households
"At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong—it's absolutely insane," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Aug 05, 2025
In a move denounced by climate and environmental justice defenders, the Trump administration is planning to claw back $7 billion in federal grants for low- and middle-income households to install rooftop solar panels, people briefed on the matter told The New York Times on Tuesday.
According to the Times, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is drafting termination letters to the 60 state agencies, nonprofit groups, and Indigenous tribes that received the grants under the Solar for All program. The move is part of the Trump administration's efforts to cancel billions of dollars in climate- and environment-oriented grants included in former President Joe Biden's landmark Inflation Reduction Act, signed in 2022.
Solar for All was launched by the Biden administration in 2023 in conjunction with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The program aimed to "develop long-lasting solar programs that enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from distributed residential solar, lowering energy costs for families, creating good-quality jobs in communities that have been left behind, advancing environmental justice, and tackling climate change."
The program was meant to help around 900,000 low- and middle-income households go solar.
Ripping away the Solar for All program means more families paying more on their bills—because God forbid people actually save money. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/05/c...
[image or embed]
— Climate Power (@climatepower.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 10:57 AM
The Trump administration froze Solar for All funding in February after President Donald Trump issued a day one executive order mandating a review of all Biden-era climate spending. The funds were reinstated in early March after EPA "worked expeditiously to enable payment accounts," according to the agency.
Responding to the Times report, Sanders said in a statement: "I introduced the Solar for All program to slash electric bills for working families by up to 80%—putting money back in the pockets of ordinary Americans, not fossil fuel billionaires. Now, Donald Trump wants to illegally kill this program to protect the obscene profits of his friends in the oil and gas industry. That is outrageous."
"Solar for All means lower utility bills, many thousands of good-paying jobs, and real action to address the existential threat of climate change," Sanders continued. "At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong—it's absolutely insane."
"We will fight back to preserve this enormously important program," he added.
Other Solar for All proponents also slammed the reported EPA move.
"Canceling these investments makes no sense," Adam Kent, green finance director amt the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement reported by The Washington Post. "Every investment will save families at least 20% on their energy bills. Members of Congress need to step up and defend a program that focused on lowering energy bills for hardworking Americans."
"The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise."
Kyle Wallace, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the solar company PosiGen, said on social media: "This would be a shocking and harmful action that will hurt vulnerable families who are struggling with rising energy costs. The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise. EPA should not do this."
Solar for All defenders vowed to fight the EPA's move.
"If leaders in the Trump administration move forward with this unlawful attempt to strip critical funding from communities across the United States, we will see them in court," Kym Meyer, litigation director at the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center, told the Times.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How to Make Sure People and the Planet Don’t Pay for the Data Center Buildout
Decision-makers must do their due diligence to prioritize the needs of a community before the needs of a data center.
Jul 24, 2025
Data centers—the places used to host servers and computers that are needed to process various IT tasks like AI queries—are booming. And the corporations that build them want a lot more land and a lot more power to make them run. These plans continue to grow in scale, and there are no signs of a slow-down.
So, how much energy will data centers need in the future? Nobody is 100% sure, but some experts estimate it could nearly triple in just 5 years, with data centers representing up to 12% of total U.S. electricity consumption in 2028, up from 4.4% in 2023.
Greed Is Fueling Short-Sighted Policies
U.S. President Donald Trump’s Department of Energy has put forth its own forecasts in a recently-published report on resource adequacy and grid reliance, which looked at multiple sources to arrive at a midpoint estimate of around 50 gigawatts (GW) of new load additions needed to meet data center energy demand. Unfortunately, the report uses flawed assumptions that greatly exaggerate projected load growth and retirements of existing fossil plants, while significantly underestimating plans to add new cleaner generation to address potential reliability concerns. This type of misleading, fossil-fuel-friendly narrative is not new for Donald Trump and his administration. This past Independence Day, he signed the reconciliation bill into law, followed by an executive order that promise devastating impacts for the future of clean and affordable energy.
Politics matter here because they set the rules of the game. Without regard for our climate or health at the highest levels of government, data center developers are happily jumping at the chance to meet the energy needs of their facilities with new gas, nuclear, or even proposing to bypass utilities altogether in order to quickly connect to the grid. Despite claims that fossil fuels are needed to keep the lights on, our analysis has shown that it’s actually renewables that support a more resilient grid.
Utilities play a role in this too, of course. In states like Wisconsin, where various data centers have been proposed, utilities are throwing new gas plants at the problem in a poorly planned attempt to keep up with energy demand predictions. They have failed to understand the paradigm shift that load growth from data centers represents, and are instead attempting to solve new problems with old tools.
So much of this reliance on methane gas hinges on corporations following through on their data center plans (which seems antithetical to maintaining commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that many of these companies still hold). But who pays for all this gas infrastructure? And what other risks and costs can we expect if plans fall apart as quickly as they came together?
Ratepayers Bear the True Risk of Fossil Fuel-Powered Data Centers
Utilities are allowed to recover costs and rake in profit via customers’ bills when building new infrastructure like gas-fired generation facilities. This puts ratepayers on the line financially for utilities’ short-sighted decisions, which are often lacking in transparency.
A report from Harvard Law experts recently identified subtle ways in which the costs of data centers are shifted to ratepayers through mechanisms like special contracts, which are offered to big customers by utilities in the form of unique and negotiated rates, but which risk cost recovery shortfalls that all other ratepayers have to later subsidize via higher bills. In other words, utilities cut deals for data centers which increase everyone else’s bills.
Additionally, when data center growth triggers the need for investment in the transmission system, those costs may also get passed down to ratepayers unless state regulators intervene.
The problem isn’t just data centers—it’s what’s powering them, and that dirty power is costly in so many ways.
In short, there are a number of ways in which our current approach to regulating energy systems is not structured to protect ratepayers in the face of this fast-paced tech boom. Profit-driven policies that benefit the already rich, along with little to no transparency into the weedy details of who pays for what, make for a dense and unforgiving mountain of obstacles in the way of an equitable energy future.
But the problem isn’t just data centers—it’s what’s powering them, and that dirty power is costly in so many ways.
A Wisconsin utility got approval to build two gas-fired plants, priced at $1.2 billion and $280 million, which will be repaid through charges added to customers’ electricity bills for the lifetime of the plants. Beyond this upfront cost lies a set of costs that doesn’t often get factored in. RMI, a non-profit focusing on energy systems, argues that the increased reliance on fossil gas brings additional cost risks from bottlenecks in supply of both gas and equipment that are borne by consumers. If these plants turn out to be obsolescent (due to overestimates of load growth or cheaper wind and solar power, for example), the utility’s customers will still have to pay all the utility’s stranded costs.
In addition to this are environmental costs of data centers and the huge health impact costs that come as a result of gas plant pollution.
A massive construction price tag, the costly risks of stranded assets, and the health-related expenses associated with just this one example in Wisconsin should give us pause.
Make Data Centers Pay Their Fair Share
In many places we’re seeing the ways in which policy and regulation is attempting to keep up with ‘Big Data Center’ plans. There is wide recognition that the solutions must include ratepayer protections. Namely, implementing policies that direct large electricity users like data centers to pay for any incremental grid infrastructure and operating costs needed to meet their power demand.
Policymakers and regulators, as well as utilities themselves, have proposed plans to create unique electricity rate structures, or tariffs, for large users. What that means is a big electricity user such as a data center would be subject to rates, terms, and conditions that are more appropriate to how they use energy and their impact on the grid. Even when utilities do initiate a plan like this, stakeholder engagement is crucial to ensuring that protections for ratepayers are well thought out. Requests for contested cases at the regulatory level, such as this one from the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin (CUB), allow for a more transparent process that keeps utilities accountable to their customers.
In Oregon, the state legislature passed a bill called the POWER Act, which shifts the infrastructure and service costs associated with rapid load growth to large users. It also includes language requiring data centers to sign long-term payment contracts with their respective electric utilities in order to decrease the risk of data center project developers ducking out early, creating stranded assets, and forcing others to foot the bill of new investments that ultimately aren’t needed.
These democratic processes play an important role in achieving fair and just rules, especially when we remember that this rapid growth in large data centers is unprecedented, speculative, and that the uncertain future of this technology puts those responsible for planning around their energy needs in a complicated position. Utility costs have long been assigned to the customers that cause those costs, at least in theory.
Say ‘No’ to Dirty Data
This trend in planning for proactive rates and contracts for new data center demand is encouraging because it acknowledges that most energy customers are not massive corporations seeking to ride the next big tech breakthrough to profits. Utilities and regulators must also provide stakeholders with transparent information on data center energy and water usage so that ratepayer advocacy can be informed by the most accurate and up-to-date information.
And let’s not forget that at the crux of this conversation lies a critical issue that we previously discussed: the steep cost of using fossil fuels, like gas and coal, to power data centers. There are certain costs that most tariffs don’t cover, including damage to our health due to polluted air, continued overreliance on unreliable sources of energy, and a price too high to conceive at the expense of our planet and future generations.
Ratepayers should not bear the burden of hosting dirty gas plants that put their health at risk, nor should they be responsible for paying higher energy costs to meet data center demand.
In Michigan, stakeholder groups are petitioning for regulations (using the contested case mechanism that I mentioned earlier) that would direct utilities to give priority within data center interconnection requests to those with clean energy plans. Other recommendations from stakeholders include transparent reporting and guidelines for keeping these data centers accountable for their clean energy promises. For a more detailed explanation of these efforts in Michigan, check out this blog from my colleague, Lee Shaver.
Minnesota, meanwhile, passed a bill last month that resulted in mixed feelings for many. The legislature extended tax breaks to 2,042 for data centers in the state, which would benefit big developers and likely bring more projects to the state. However, the bill also revoked a tax exemption on electricity bills, making data centers more accountable for their energy use. Utilities will also be prevented from passing on these costs to their other customers or avoiding the state’s 100% clean electricity mandate. Not only that, but a new data center fee was introduced that would direct funding toward weatherization programs for low-income residents to make energy-efficient upgrades. The bill did fall short on robust commitments to issues like natural resource protections.
People-First Solutions
There doesn’t seem to be a singular right way through these challenges (see Elon Musk’s xAI project in Memphis for an example of the wrong way), but some guiding principles might help:
- Decision-makers must do their due diligence to prioritize the needs of a community before the needs of a data center. The benefits of economic growth should be distributed through equitable and just channels.
- Ratepayers should not bear the burden of hosting dirty gas plants that put their health at risk, nor should they be responsible for paying higher energy costs to meet data center demand.
- Utilities must prioritize the use of renewables, efficiency, energy storage, and other grid-supporting technologies to meet new demand, relying on viable and adaptable long-term planning rather than an arbitrary urgency that risks further overreliance on fossil fuels.
- Utility plans and data center information should be made accessible and transparent to the public, including any grid impacts resulting from data center energy demand.
The cost of doing business with dirty fossil fuels isn’t worth it. The fight to put people over profits always is.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular