I agree with the thrust of your argument but its actually still totally a social and economic problem and not a problem of technology. First covid19 demonstrates how much of education and work can take place from the home without the need of rushhour style transport.

Second your examples of gates and musk are actually examples of the general failure of governments and markets to use existing technologies. Nuclear power, Hydro electric, ocean power, traditional solar ; all of these are existing technologies that dont need innovation what they need is the economic and social Will to construct. Musks EVs ; very expensive direct replacements for existing vehicles to me indicates something very wrong in the approach to solving climate change.

The problem is one of Coordination. The sclerosis of western society and our focus on individual incentive prevents anything but the most marginal of improvements.

A great example can be seen here in Ontario. Here the government subsidized private individuals to put up their own solar on their homes. Electric prices soared. The result is basically a wealth transfer from poor to rich with very little gained. Again there is some similarity here to the Tesla EV. Not that solar makes much sense in Canada but i am sure the government could have done much better to have run this project itself.

home work and education is technology. it might have not been build to save the environment , but it could save it. None - zero - of the remote solutions were advocated by politics, in fact management and politics is hostile to it as has been attested in these forums many times

Right but im in 100% in agreement with your statements. The "real" problems are in the social -political -economic realm. NOT actually that we need significant new technological developments. Thats why I disagree that it is a " It's nothing but a technology problem."

Fossil fuels only account for about 70% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing all of them with renewable energy sources will lower emissions but also bring more emissions (e.g. from cement needed to build those power plants). Our current global economic system is pretty much single mindedly focused on exponential GDP growth. As long as this system persists, all that new clean energy will be used to produce more useless disposable gadgets, driving up more emissions from methane (from all the new trash produced with all that energy). What we need to stop climate change is to lower consumption and to lower production. This is very much possible while also increasing quality of life. Technology can help with getting that into people's head, but a political will has to be there first, and that won't be possible without challenging the current economic system.

"This is very much possible while also increasing quality of life."

I don't disagree. It's in part a framing issue. For decades the message has been "you should feel guilty for wanting things, and to save the world everyone needs to de-industrialize and return to the lifestyle of a medieval peasant." (I'm exaggerating just a little bit, but not much.)

The mainstream response has been similar to how people respond to other moral shaming campaigns: pretend to play along and engage in a lot of token signaling gestures (like banning plastic straws or recycled disposable cups) but otherwise ignore it. Actual behavior does not change, but you get this gloss of fake ineffective feel-good junk.

The developing world's response has been a bit more pointed: "fuck you, we're poor." They're not going to listen to a bunch of rich westerners tell them they need to stay poor to save the planet.