New projections is that it will cost 6 times more to combat climate change in 2050 than doing it today, so up from about 1 % of global BNP to 6 %. Stupid and, yes, dumping unnecessary costs on children and grandchildren, but hardly "frying" or resource wars. Especially since the global population is projected to decline a generation after (starting in 2080 in the latest projections).
You don't identify the source of your "projection." Ones I've seen are
much more dire.
We passed "peak energy" just before the pandemic, which actually gave us a reprieve of sorts. If we had continued with the pandemic-induced growth restraint, we'd be a lot better off today!
You won't find such numbers unless you really dig. (Google for "Art Berman.") That's because we measure fossil sunlight volumetrically instead of energetically, and the amount of energy we get out of each barrel of oil has been steadily decreasing since the US began fracking in earnest.
Fracked oil is lighter, and contains less energy, and can't be made into diesel, and it is diesel that is the most difficult to replace with renewables. There is no current agricultural or long-distance transport alternative do diesel.
Bottom line: we are running out of resources faster than we are developing alternatives. The so-called "renewables" we have developed are not displacing fossil sunlight production, rather, renewables are increasing our energy usage. And currently, all renewable energy sources require a great deal of fossil sunlight to produce.
Those of us who lived through the 1970s have seen this before. "Stagflation" is a leading indicator of catabolic decline.
We're pretty much on-track with the
Limits to Growth "Business As Usual" model.