I think it's only partially true. It really comes down to your definition of tech. But i guess your right that green tech is our only hope to keep the planet inhabitable for 8 billion people.
A counter example is cars, cars have come with new technology and as such they have increased our emissions. But they have lowered their emissions overtime. Cars will continue to get more efficient and cleaner.
This is the trend the more we advance the cleaner our technology gets. However we also seem to use more and energy as we expand our numbers. There are two options, reduce our numbers or increase our efficiencies. I rather like humanity and the freedom to procreate so I put all my eggs in the efficiency basket. The only way I know that increases efficiency is to develop new technology.
Demand your government do more. If you are in the US and a Republican, at least politely request that your party acknowledge climate change as a reality.
I'd say from technology alone. It is clearly also a collective and societal problem. But a big part of the problem is that much of the things we do are mal-adapted to that reality, and need to be changed - and this will, of course, include a lot of new technology.
Asking people to consume less meat, won't do anything - creating lab-grown meat and making it cheaper than the alternatives will phase out most factory farming by itself. Regulations on fossil fuels won't reach every country and won't persist with every change of government - making cleaner fuels more economically viable than fossil fuels will scale over the entire planet. This isn't an argument against regulations - until the tech catches up, regulations might be the best we can do but better and cheaper technology is always a more persistent option.
It's very similar to what is happening with coronavirus - you can have the government impose some measures, you can ask people to make responsible decisions but that is just buying time until technology actually solves the problem - invent a vaccine and you have the problem as close to solved as possible. I think the same goes with climate change, the difference is that for climate change we need a large number of really good technology solutions instead of just one.
Climate crisis should be lumped in as fake news, disinformation until such time as it can either be shown to be real or not. How many more failed predictions such as the end of snow by 2010 do we have to put up with.
Even those politicians who spouted on about this such as Al Gore and Barack Obama have bought expensive sea front houses. Clearly they are no longer worried about rising sea levels...