I think you may be right. Whether we prevent them or not we will all struggle to aim for that, and will all suffer from either eventuality.
We live in one of the have-it-all nations while still wanting more (How many of the most basic aspects of our lives, before any hobbies or cultural activities, need rely on things that "plug in the wall"?). While huge areas of the world naturally want vital needs that can only be delivered by mineral fuels or plugs in walls. Many would like have the sockets to plug things into.
Our society waffles virtuously about saving "energy" without worrying what the word means, and by ending using mineral fuels; but insists on increasing waste such as "smart" 'speakers, video-type advertising hoardings and operating anything and everything by "smart"-'phones. Gadgets not even built domestically but imported from many thousands of miles away.
While for governments of any flavour to keep hammering we motorists is very hypocritical, when they continue to allow the huge waste of electricity in motorway service areas and by the spreading rash of those giant ad displays, and the continued development of big out-of-town shopping-centres designed for car users only.
Hindsight is wonderful, letting us see we should have been investigating for example, using hydrogen as a fuel and ore-reducer, developing nuclear power, encouraging domestic manufacturing, etc; decades ago when the focus was on minerals depletion rather then the climate.
(The Swedish and German iron industries were using arc furnaces for iron-ore smelting 100 years ago – though my reference does not state the reducing-agent. The text is a contemporary electrical-engineering book that also covers the battery-electric vehicles of the time, when electric cars were allowed in London's Royal Parks that banned the petrol versions!)
Climate-change induced by atmospheric pollution was predicted well over 100 years ago, but the forecast danger-point was well ahead of our own time, now, so largely ignored in an era of "taming Nature"; then probably pushed out of mind by two World Wars and economic depressions.
By our collective failure over the last fifty years, we now face a bizarre, frantic scramble tainted by politics and desperately low technical literacy, to end one set of things before ensuring sufficient supplies of practicable, replacement things.
Replacements that will not only husband finite resources but are now also "enviromentally friendly" – to verge on the trendy jargon beloved of those barely knowing "energy" from "power".
Do our much-vaunted replacements meet both criteria? Not very well, if at all.