I don't agree the terminology, and associated business of renewables helps anything at all.
You started with the one form of energy that needs to be concentrated on (Solar), to fix the problem, but even there your words made it look optional ("One of the...").
What you believe about renewables is what the industry tells you, rather than what you might learn if you just take the time to trace out the energy flows between Earth, sun, humanity, nature etc for yourself.
If you do this, picturing Earth as a kind of battery, trickle charged by the sun, discharged by us taking most of what we use back out of the Earth, you start to get an idea of why wind, hydro, and all other kinds of "Renewables" are just more extraction, and actually expensive distractions from the only real fix (solar).
Even climate scientists themselves admit we haven't done anything to stop the relentless acceleration of temperature rise.
That's because the battery running out, is what is causing the temperature rise, it isn't so much to do at all with greenhouse gases, as the industry would have you believe.
The atmosphere is adiabatic. This causes a fundamental problem with the theory of greenhouse gases.
All business selling you the narrative of greenhouse gases is for profit, just as the business of fossil fuels, utilities enetgy supply, banking, and even the business of war, is all for profit.
And look, profit itself is only possible using extracted, scarcifiable energy.
More energy is transported by money than by any other medium.
If you doubt this, try converting the money you pay in utilities energy bills to energy at market rates of KWhrs. Of course you had to pay more energy like this to the supplier than they supplied to you as electricity or gas.
So the net flow of energy was from you to the utilities energy supplier. After a utilities energy supplier has been and gone, say a nuclear power station or whatever, it's net contribution to your wealth never empowered you, but impoverished you, unless you happen to have been a shareholder or employee of the company such that the energy value in the income you got from wages, or from holding shares in the energy "Supply" project (or even both), which returned to you, is more energy than what you paid in energy profit to the project as bills for the energy it supplied to you as gas or electricity, as well as the cost of the shares.
Its for this reason the supply of utilities energy is in real danger of just suddenly stopping, profitability of that business is dropping.
When it drops below the threshold of profitability, it will just stop, unless the business involved would be happy to carry on doing it for free.
And because all profitability depends on the same thing at its root; availability of energy to extract, all profitability is disappearing, as the difficulty of extraction of all energy, including the energy in food, is similarly in danger of collapsing.
This is why it's more of an existential threat than we currently realise, because still, the only thing we are actively trying to maintain, is profit, whilst forever profit is impossible, and in fact profit itself traces to temperature rise.
So rather than trying to map global warming to time, we should be mapping it very simply to profits made.
All extraction and refinement processes, as necessary to make profit have energy losses to heat, and when these are applied to the thermal mass of the planet, together with the heat dissipated by consumption, then we get figures that add up to the measured temperature rise.
There is no way to do that via the very complex analyses involved greenhouse gas theory.
Why do you think this kind of energy auditing / tracing activity is never done?
Because nobody interested in, or dependent on making energy profit for a living will supply you with the energy you need to do it.
Nobody funds me to do it.
But it needs to be done, right?