A large-scale blackout struck western Cuba on Wednesday, leaving millions without power in the latest outage to hit the island as it grapples with dwindling oil supplies due to sanctions imposed by President Donald Trump.

The U.S. Embassy in Cuba said that at approximately 12:41 p.m., there was a “disconnection of the national electrical grid resulting in a complete power outage” stretching from Camagüey to Pinar del Río, including the greater Havana metropolitan area.

“Cuba’s national electrical grid is increasingly unstable and prolonged scheduled and unscheduled power outages are a daily occurrence across the country to include Havana,” the embassy said. 

“Outages affect water supply, lighting, refrigeration, and communications. Take precautions by conserving fuel, water, food, and mobile phone charge, and be prepared for significant disruption.”

The incident was reportedly caused by an unexpected shutdown of the Antonio Guiteras thermoelectric plant, located roughly 62 miles east of Havana.

Local reports indicate the island may need at least three days to restore operations, according to the Associated Press.

Vicente de la O Levy, the minister of Energy and Mines of Cuba, added that “We are working on the restoration of the SEN amid a complex energy situation.” 

At least one power plant, Felton 1, remains online, he said.

CUBA’S PRESIDENT DEFIANT, SAYS NO NEGOTIATIONS SCHEDULED AS TRUMP MOVES TO CHOKE OFF OIL LIFELINE

Reuters reported that, because Cuba is accustomed to frequent power outages caused by state-imposed energy rationing, some traffic lights and businesses remained operational thanks to solar panels or backup generators. Many residents have also installed solar panels on their homes and vehicles to maintain electricity amid soaring fuel prices, the outlet said.

Cuba has endured a string of widespread blackouts in recent years due to long-standing issues with its aging power infrastructure and chronic fuel shortages.

However, the situation worsened in January after a U.S. military operation captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and halted Venezuelan oil exports, effectively choking off Cuba’s key source of fuel.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel stated in January that, despite the U.S. severing Havana’s energy lifeline, his administration would not negotiate with Washington to establish a new agreement.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Related Article

Pedro Sánchez knows exactly what he is doing.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

By defying Donald Trump and doubling down on his bras de fer with the US president, the Spanish prime minister consolidates a two-fold strategy.

On the one hand, he seeks to mobilize his progressive electorate domestically, resuscitating a “no to war” movement which resonated strongly with Spanish voters during the US-led war against Iraq in 2003. Sánchez is also hoping for a moment akin to that of Dominique de Villepin: a Cassandra warning against an unjustified war that will bring disastrous consequences.

Only now it’s Iran.

In doing so, he aims to consolidate his image as one of the last strongly progressive, socialist leaders in a global political environment shifting rightward under the influence of MAGA-aligned politics, at a time when left-wing parties across Europe are losing electoral ground and struggling to project a unified international voice.

His strategy, while bold, is also risky as it could leave Spain diplomatically isolated from the European consensus and trigger a trade war that could impact Spanish companies in the US. It also risks inflaming tensions within NATO where Madrid has pursued a somewhat independent strategic line. Intelligence-sharing is also crucial and may be compromised with national security ramifications if the US decides to weaponise it.

Still, far from looking for a ramp-off, Sánchez is double down on his bet.

“In 2003, a few irresponsible leaders dragged us into an illegal war into an illegal war in the Middle East that brought nothing but insecurity and pain,” Sánchez said Wednesday.

“No to violations of international law. No to the illusion that we can solve the world’s problems with bombs. No to repeating the mistakes of the past. No to war.”

A clash choreographed to perfection

His campaign against the US-Israeli intervention in Iran comes after Trump threatened to impose a trade embargo on Spain in response to Madrid’s refusal to allow Washington to use its military bases to strike Iran from its territory.

Spain insisted any operation handled from the two bases it hosts in Rota and Moron should be limited to humanitarian assistance rather than offensive strikes, and that all activities must comply with international law. The move led to the withdrawal of U.S. aircraft from the bases according to radar information.

From the Oval office on Tuesday, Trump referred to Spain as an “unfriendly” and “terrible” ally. As he threatened a trade embargo in response, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz—who was visiting the White House—remained silent, Spain judged that the time had come to confront the world’s most powerful man and began preparing its response.

Sources close to the Spanish government late afternoon began to brief that, if Washington were to unilaterally terminate trade ties, it would have to do “in compliance with international law, EU-USA terms of trade and respecting private companies.”

By 8 p.m. Madrid time, the Prime Minister’s office informed journalists that Sánchez would deliver a “declaración institucional”—a statement typically reserved for solemn occasions—at 9 a.m. the following day. The announcement was made just ahead of the evening news broadcasts.

Little was left to chance, reflecting Sánchez’s carefully managed communications strategy, which is often viewed as both highly effective but also opportunistic.

According to people familiar with the Moncloa palace, as the 17th-century inspired office of the prime minister is known, backtracking was never an option.

Instead, Madrid was clear it needed to respond forcefully, emphasizing Spain’s sovereignty, the consistency of its foreign policy from Ukraine to Gaza and Sánchez’s position as the only European leader standing up to Trump.

The Spanish Prime Minister delivered just that.

‘Our position is best resumed in four words: no to the war,” he said, adding that “23 years ago, another US administration dragged us into war in the Middle East.”

“We were told it would destroy weapons of mass destruction, export democracy and guarantee global security. In hindsight, it was the opposite. It led to a drastic increase of terrorism, a grave migration crisis in the Mediterranean and more expensive energy.”

The political assessment of the Spanish government is that Europeans are tired of appeasing Trump, whether in tariff disputes or defence commitments such as imposing a 5% spending goal with a large chunk dedicated to buying US weapons.

As a result, a candidate who is seen as willing to defend European interests and confront Trump could gain a strong electoral advantage. The Spanish government has not been shy about its policy positions, at the risk of antagonising the real estate magnate since he returned to the White House last year.

Last summer, Madrid refused to adhere to the 5% target suggesting that it would lead to chaotic off-the-shelf purchases of weapons, rather than common European buying, and suggested that NATO performance should be measured on capabilities.

The message is simple: Spain is an ally, but it’s also sovereign.

Echoes of Villepin and the ghost of the Azores

For his latest move, Sánchez took inspiration from two defining moments after the launch of the US operation against Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush.

The first was a powerful speech delivered in February that year by former French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin who warned before the UN Security Council—of which France is a permanent member—against what he described as a potentially disastrous invasion.

De Villepin passionately pushed back against the US, disputed military actions and suggested intelligence report did not support American claims of a linkage between al-Qaeda, the Saddam Hussein regime and the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

Time proved Villepin right.

The Iraqi war is particularly relevant for the Spanish public opinion because, at the time, former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar alongside former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair threw their support behind the Bush administration in its operation.

In the Spanish press, the three leaders were dubbed the “Trío de las Azores,” a name inspired by a photograph taken of them on the Portuguese Atlantic archipelago of the Azores. Spain’s backing of the war sparked a massive protest movement across the country under the slogan “No a la guerra.”

More than 20 years later, Sánchez is reviving it, hoping it will energize his base, increase his international profile and — just as it did for Dominique de Villepin —vindicate his choices.

The Spanish prime minister is facing a difficult re-election campaign, with the next vote scheduled to take place in 2027. Still, Madrid is rife with speculation that he could call for a snap election if he sees a favourable opening and succeeds in rallying his progressive coalition.

But to move up a planned election date, he needs a compelling justification or risk being seen as too cynical to be palatable. Sánchez is perceived by a large part of the Spanish electorate as lacking a moral compass.

The war in the Middle East — and his hard line toward Donald Trump, which the opposition claims risks isolating Spain within the EU, NATO and the broader Western alliance — could provide such a rationale.

The Spanish Prime Minister played that card back in 2023: when he framed a snap election as a referendum on his policies. Although the conservatives secured the largest share of the vote, Spain’s parliamentary system enabled Sánchez to assemble a majority coalition and remain in power.

A clash a long time in the making

In many ways, the rocky relation between the US under Trump and the Spanish government is hardly surprising. The two have clashed on everything from migration policies to societal values, each embracing their role as the other’s political opposite.

For Sánchez — a deeply polarizing figure who denies any wrongdoing in multiple court cases involving members of his family — the international stage offers a political shelter, as is often the case for embattled leaders at home. And he is intentional in cultivating a global profile.

An international conference of left-leaning voices expected to take place in Barcelona next April debating topics from democracy, tech oligarchs and reactionary movements, according to a person familiar with the organizer. The goal is to present a forum that can rival the CPAC, the largest gathering for conversatives, only this time for progressives.

In the meantime, the Spaniards have grown increasingly convinced that more European voices will join them as the war drags on. “Many are afraid of confrontation with the US, but our words reflect what a large camp thinks in Europe,” said a Spanish diplomat.

On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron called Sánchez to express his solidarity in the face of Trump’s trade threats. European Council President Antonio Costa and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did the same.

Still, his power moves have not gone unnoticed by critics, who argue that Madrid is treading a very fine line by antagonizing the United States for political gain, even as the EU seeks to secure a fair peace deal for Ukraine. With an American security guarantee necessary to ensure Kyiv is not attacked again by Russia, and US input in NATO remaining crucial for European security, such tensions carry significant risks.

“He does this for national politics, and he knows the EU will back him up because solidarity always prevails. But is this really necessary?” asked a diplomat from another EU country.

For Madrid, it’s not just necessary, it’s imperative.

Climate change’s rising seas may threaten tens of millions more people than scientists and government planners originally thought because of mistaken research assumptions on how high coastal waters already are, a new study said.

Researchers studied hundreds of scientific studies and hazard assessments, calculating that about 90% of them underestimated baseline coastal water heights by an average of 1 foot (30 centimeters), according to Wednesday’s study in the journal Nature. It’s a far more frequent problem in the Global South, the Pacific and Southeast Asia, and less so in Europe and along Atlantic coasts.

The cause is a mismatch between the way sea and land altitudes are measured, said study co-author Philip Minderhoud, a hydrogeology professor at Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands. And he attributed that to a “methodological blind spot” between the different ways those two things are measured.

Each way measures their own areas properly, he said. But where sea meets land, there’s a lot of factors that often don’t get accounted for when satellites and land-based models are used. Studies that calculate sea level rise impact usually “do not look at the actual measured sea level so they used this zero-meter” figure as a starting point, said lead author Katharina Seeger of the University of Padua in Italy. In some places in the Indo-Pacific, it’s close to 3 feet (1 meter), Minderhoud said.

One simple way to understand that is that many studies assume sea levels without waves or currents, when the reality at the water’s edge is of oceans constantly roiled by wind, tides, currents, changing temperatures and things like El Niño, said Minderhoud and Seeger.

Adjusting to a more accurate coastal height baseline means that if seas rise by a little more than 3 feet (1 meter) — as some studies suggest will happen by the end of the century — waters could inundate up to 37% more land and threaten 77 million to 132 million more people, the study said.

That would trigger problems in planning and paying for the impacts of a warming world.

People at risk

“You have a lot of people here for whom the risk of extreme flooding is much higher than people thought,’’ said Anders Levermann, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, who wasn’t part of the study. And Southeast Asia, where the study finds the biggest discrepancy, has the most people already threatened by sea level rise, he said.

Minderhoud pointed to island nations in that region as an area where the reality of discrepancy hits home.

Advertisement

Advertisement

For 17-year-old climate activist Vepaiamele Trief, the projections aren’t abstract. On her island home in the South Pacific archipelago of Vanuatu, the shoreline has visibly retreated within her short lifetime, with beaches eroded, coastal trees uprooted and some homes now barely 3 feet (about 1 meter) from the sea at high tide. On her grandmother’s island of Ambae, a coastal road from the airport to her village has been rerouted inland because of encroaching water. Graves have been submerged and entire ways of life feel under threat.

“These studies, they aren’t just words on a paper. They aren’t just numbers. They’re people’s actual livelihoods,” she said. “Put yourself in the shoes of our coastal communities — their lives are going to be completely overturned because of sea level rise and climate change.”

Paying attention to the starting point

This new study is pretty much about what is the truth on the ground.

Calculations that may be correct for the seas overall or for the land aren’t quite right at that key intersection point of water and land, Seeger and Minderhoud said. It’s especially true in the Pacific.

Advertisement

“To understand how much higher a piece of land is than the water, you need to know the land elevation and the water elevation. And what this paper says the vast majority of studies have done is to just assume that zero in your land elevation dataset is the level of the water. When in fact, it’s not,” said sea level rise expert Ben Strauss, CEO of Climate Central. His 2019 study was one of the few the new paper said got it right.

“It’s just the baseline that you start from that people are getting wrong,” said Strauss, who wasn’t part of the research.

Maybe not so bad, some scientists say

Other outside scientists said that Minderhoud and Seeger may be making too much of the problem.

“I think they’re exaggerating the implications for impact studies a bit — the problem is actually well understood, albeit addressed in a way that could probably be improved,” said Gonéri Le Cozannet, a scientist at the French geological survey. Most local planners know their coastal issues and plan accordingly, Rutgers University sea level expert Robert Kopp said.

That’s true in Vietnam in the high-impact area, Minderhoud said. They have an accurate sense of elevation, he said.

The findings come as a new UNESCO report warns of major gaps in understanding how much carbon the ocean absorbs. That report said that models differ by 10% to 20% in estimating the size of that carbon sink, raising questions about the accuracy of global climate projections that rely on them.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Together, the studies suggest governments may be planning for coastal and climate risks with an incomplete picture of how the ocean is changing.

“When the ocean comes closer, it takes away more than just the land we used to enjoy,” said Thompson Natuoivi, a climate advocate for Save the Children Vanuatu.

“Sea level rise is not just changing our coastline, it’s changing our lives. We are not talking about the future — we’re talking about the right now.”

___

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment