About pollution: there are two kinds of pollutants: local (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter) and global (carbon dioxide, ozone-depleting substances).
Ozone depletion is a problem that has been successfully solved, thanks to the Montreal protocol. Thus, ozone layer will be even better in 2050 than it is today.
The maximum amount of increase in carbon dioxide is dictated by our ability to find new fossil fuel reserves, as old ones are quickly depleting. It could be anything, really, causing warming from 2 degrees Celsius to even 5 degrees Celsius. I can say the recent IPCC target of 1.5 degrees Celsius probably won't be achieved, as we're already at 1.0 degrees Celsius and there's only 0.5 degrees Celsius left. Fortunately, carbon dioxide is not directly harmful to human health in the levels it can achieve in 2050, so the main damages will be in the form of sea level rise, global warming and extreme weather events, which are admittedly caused by carbon dioxide, but indirectly, not directly.
That leaves local pollutants. They will NOT be a problem. The problem of gasoline pollutants was 99% solved through the introduction of the catalytic converter. Diesel was a problem until diesel particulate filter (DPF) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) utilizing urea were taken into use, and until WLTP test cycle made emission cheating in the style of Volkswagen impossible. Big power plants have been fitted with local pollutant controlling devices, as well. Air in 2050 will be due to improved technology much cleaner than air in 2019.
So, does the pollution increase? It will, if you consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant. As a forest owner who lives in very cold climate, I consider carbon dioxide an airborne fertilizer, although I understand the other viewpoints as well: some areas, unfortunately, become uninhabitable due to global warming.
Fossil fuels may or may not "run out" (if you mean by "running out" depleting so much that prices will skyrocket). The big question is whether fossil fuel use will be limited. If it will be limited, there will be a large carbon tax, making the price of fossil fuels extremely high for the user, yet extremely low for the producer. Stock investors should take a note of this: it may not make sense to invest in fossil fuel mining companies.
If fossil fuel use will not be limited, the price of fossil fuels will probably increase due to limited reserves. It will not be a total catastrophe, as new reserves will be found (apart from a climate catastrophe, obviously).
Some people see benefits, some people suffer. As somebody who lives in very cold climate, owns boreal forest in an even colder climate, and works as a software developer in weather service business, I will probably be in the list of people who see benefits. The climate where I live will become less extreme, my forest will see increased growth rates, and my employer will see increased business due to extreme weather events caused by climate change.
If the other path (limiting emissions) will be taken, I am prepared for that as well: I own 28000 kWh / year of clean carbon-free electricity production, 25.6 hectares of carbon-sequestering and bioenergy-producing forest, have a relatively efficient hybrid electric vehicle and the possibility to switch to an electric car because I have an electric car charging station. I also have significant investments in wind turbine manufacturers, solar cell and inverter manufacturers and hydrogen electrolyser manufacturers.
Will you be in the list of people who suffer or see benefits? It's your choice: you can choose where you live, where you work, what kind of house you have, what stocks you own, whether you choose to invest in forest, etc.