If we had "an inexhaustible, carbon-free source of energy that you can deploy anywhere and at any time" we'd wreck the planet faster than we already are... I guess at least a few could escape though.
This is because a lot of rich countries seem to me to be well placed to benefit partially from global climate change at the moment, at least within the 1-2C range. Changing the climate past that point is likely to be controversial, since the countries who now benefit from the situation will likely not want to give those newfound advantages away.
I would think of it a lot as the end result of a war - the borders are defined by where the armies stopped ie the division of Europe and Asia after ww2. After climate change I expect whoever has benefitted from it to defend their position and reject any further alterations!
But every cent diverted to fusion from solar brings climate disaster closer.
Edit: also, your comments seem to be incredibly negative on fusion, would you mind disclosing if you have any solar or wind connected conflicts of interest?
My beef with fusion is about long-term hucksterism and wholly-legal corruption. STS, SLS, F-35, Big Dig, 2nd Ave, Cal bullet train, fission, fusion.
Dollars are fungible. Would fusion dollars otherwise go to renewables build-out? They might be more likely to go to battery, solar panel, superconducting power transmission, or carbon reclamation research. All of those would be welcome alternatives.
Even FRC fusion would be a better use of funding.