Sorry i am not trying to offend you, but i just do not agree with your points...
It might help not to call every opinion a politcial one- i do not think left vs right at all.
your idea of socialism is a caricature - even the US under Trump is a mix of Socialism and Capitalism.
Paying tax is a kind of socialism- needed to get certain things done, like building roads.
When looking at alternatives for fossil fuel; Wind and solar energy are already economically concurring with fossil fuel in many fields.
Even more if you calculate the pollution fossil fuels produce. No unicorns and rainbows needed.
Advanced studies on the economics of wind and solar do not show them being economically viable alternatives.
I have gone over this before. It has been shown in nearly every circumstance, that when wind and solar start supplying around 12% of the power supply, the viability of them drop significantly and the overall price for energy starts to raise. If you look at Germany, which gets about 23% of their power from wind and solar (with around 50% capacity of production), electricity cost is nearly three times that of France.
The only two real life cases of this not being the case is in TX and AZ. With TX, the natural gas boom has greatly decreased the price of natural gas, which is offsetting the increase in cost from solar/wind. In AZ, the fact that nearly 80% of the state is owned by the Federal government, the cost of land for solar and wind farms, which is a huge part of the cost, is extremely low and those farms can be located near major metro areas, decreasing the need for long distance lines, another major cost. Neither of these cases can be applied to anywhere else though, especially in Europe.
Even in the case of solar panels on house roof, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roofing panels then from solar farms. On top of that, increase in urbanization means the roof space per capita is greatly decrease in time, eliminating this as a viable alternative. Not to mention, roof panels would never be able to supply the needed power for commercial usage.
Furthermore, even if you ignore the direct cost of solar/wind, the indirect cost of storing is extremely high as well. All batteries loose at least 20% of energy when you store energy with in them to extract later, but could be as high as 40%. On top of that, the shear amount of batteries, which are expensive, you would need to make this work is huge, which would cause even more damage due to the drastic increase in mining necessary to get the raw materials. CA has been trying to lead here, but still has less then 6 minutes of battery usage in the entire state, even if you count every single battery in the state (like those in flashlights). Also, all other energy storage solutions have enormous pit falls, such as the idea of storing water in dam like structures. Here, the obvious problem is you need an area to build an dam like structure, and there are limited areas to build such things. On top of that, you need to use fresh water and only 1% of the world's water is fresh water, so it is a limit resource.
The only solution that could be an alternative is nuclear. Unlike wind and solar, it uses very little land. As an environmentalist, one of the biggest gripes I have with wind/solar the shear amount of land you need, all of which is destroyed. Nuclear is very different. Nuclear fuel is incredibly power dense, so you don't need to use a lot of it per capita. Nuclear waste is completely self contain. Unlike wind or solar, it can produce energy on demand and a plant can operate 80+% of the time. Best case, solar and wind only produce energy 30% of the time. Additionally, unlike geothermal where you need geothermal vents nearby to use, nuclear can be implemented anywhere.
Overall I hear the left demonize nuclear (with the exception of Bill Gates, but I cant invest in his company yet), whereas the right does not, albeit some are afraid of it. So I will vote for where the workable solution is, and until the left starts excepting nuclear as the only main alternative, it's not there.