I kindly disagree. Solar and wind are marginal, and they have developed a lot thanks to fossil fuels. For society to not collapse, we would need them to scale in a world without fossil fuels. That is very far from being remotely proven. Then you can't control solar and wind (if there is no sun and no wind, you're screwed), so you need something else. If you have that something else, then probably you don't need that much solar/wind. Don't get me wrong: some solar and some wind is probably appropriate in many situations, but that is far from remotely replacing fossil fuels.
Fission is nice, but it takes a lot of time to build new plants (we as a society will be screwed pretty soon, so we don't have a ton of time before deciding to build new ones), but still they won't replace fossil fuels entirely.
Which means that we are going towards a future with less energy. If we screw up (and keep not doing anything like now), we're essentially dead. If we do it really well, we will have some energy, but not as much as today.
Therefore we need to prepare our society to deal with less energy. That has nothing to do with politics, it's just physics. Politics will make the difference between society completely collapsing and society dealing with less energy.
Fission is nice, but it takes a lot of time to build new plants (we as a society will be screwed pretty soon, so we don't have a ton of time before deciding to build new ones), but still they won't replace fossil fuels entirely.
Which means that we are going towards a future with less energy. If we screw up (and keep not doing anything like now), we're essentially dead. If we do it really well, we will have some energy, but not as much as today.
Therefore we need to prepare our society to deal with less energy. That has nothing to do with politics, it's just physics. Politics will make the difference between society completely collapsing and society dealing with less energy.