The cost of meeting the new energy demands for AI is going to be shared by all of us.
Well this is where the subjectivity comes into play, a lot of people are not convinced AI is worth absorbing more shared costs.
For a completely hyperbolic example but if a company came in and said "We have a new firm that takes your elderly relatives and processes them into nutrient paste. It requires 6GW of new power capacity but you all get some of the nutrient paste and it keeps the nation out of a nutrient paste gap" many would say "I dunno, we don't really care about that and seems like a waste of energy. Why should we share that cost?"
I can see the pitch of a new housing development or a factory to a town of people as an economic upside worth the shared costs. The AI companies have done a piss-poor job of that, probably into the negative.
Doesn't help when the pitch seems to be "Our stated goal for AI is to put you out of work. Oh and we also supported the party that wants to provide zero safety net for that outcome".