You write, "Solar and wind directly and dramatically reduce existing emissions and pollution, and are crucial to reversing the climate crisis."
Balderdash! Solar & wind supply additional energy, not alternative energy; when all available space has been covered with PVs & windmills and they are producing maximum output, will the technological society simply accept the limitation of electrical power, or will it then burn (assuming it had ever before ceased burning) fossil fuels to boost electrical power? The answer is obvious.

But you are correct that these technologies are "crucial to resolving the climate crisis" IF one wants to maintain technological domination and dependency. But of course technological advances are what brought us away from Nature and to the precipice of our own extinction; it seems utterly naive to believe that we've finally gotten control and can direct technology which is daily advancing ever more autonomously.

Even if 'green tech' could be deployed as replacement for polluting tech, what would we do with this non-polluting electrical power? Will we develop a utopia where everyone gets along with an efficient vegan diet and tolerance for diverse people, ideas, and customs? You know we won't, governments will simply extend their power further over their subjects and fight with each other to do so. Eventually someone will invade Mars and take whatever they have there, regardless of who inhabits the place.

Humans clearly do not need electricity, having harnessed it only 220 years ago after existing as a species for something like 1,000 times as long.

These and other concepts are explored in this essay, which avoids all manipulable data in rebuking critics of the film and instead simply reasons logically about the problems of pursuing technological solutions to a crisis created by technology: https://medium.com/@jorgecluni/green-energy-vs-wild-nature-b1e8dfe6426d