Pools do not burn electricity. They create transactions using hash rate of miners. So it will be fair to say that they indirectly owning the hash rate.
Nope, the term will be more like renting rather than owning, miners can quit and turn to a different pool at any time for a better fee or better chances, so nope, they don't own anything.
The lists will be very small against full transactions bandwidth. Therefore, using blacklists will not affect the income of miners.
From the other side the first thing that miners care of is their profit. If pool gives good fees miners will go to this pool, no matter if it is controlled by somebody or not.
Would you use a currency that can simply freeze your funds at any time just because a foreign government has said so? What would then be the difference with fiat? Once this happens the price will drop, hurting longterm miners a hundred times more than a few small tx, think what the implication longterm mean.
Also in 12 years, we're going to see 3 more halvings the reward will go from 6.25 to 0.78, right now the fees are indeed just 8%, but they will probably dominate even before than, most likely even in 2 halvings, and in 4 they will be the main income.
Maybe. But I heard that miners always care about internet connection speed and quality for fast block propagation. p2p is always slower than direct connections. But maybe one of the ways.
Once miners switch to p2p then traditional pools will have no hashrate to finds blocks, no matter how fast their connection is.