Is it possible to quantify & cost the ideological obstruction to climate change? Paul Rogers in an article on Open Democracy, writes:

It is also significant that the term 'hothouse earth' has caught on, and that the idea of runaway climate disruption is covered in the media in some depth - even by newspapers that have long been impregnable citadels of climate denial
The weekly economist has for many years given ample space to climate sceptics, but recently it's coverage has changed markedly. The cover story of its latest is about the failure to tackle climate change.

Is it possible to quantify and cost the ideological obstruction on tackling climate change given that the earlier climate change is tackled the more effective it would be?
One example of a global effort to limit environmental damage was the Montreal protocol on limiting substances that damage the ozone layer that came into force in 1987 with climate projections showing that ozone layer will return to 1980 levels around 2050-70. Of course, the CFC industry is valued in the billions whereas the fossil fuel industry is valued in the trillions so there is likely to be a much larger push-back from the industry. It's this that I want to have numbers on.
In view of the comment below in the top rated answer, I'd suggest that such an exercise would useful in informing class action suits in the future in the same way that we have had class action suits against big tobacco firms. (In the latter, they are polluting peoples lungs and in the former, the planet lungs).
Yes, it is possible to cost it. The range of costs could be estimated by taking the range of estimates of the marginal social cost of carbon (in €/tCO2e), and the range of estimates of the net excess amount of greenhouse gases [GHG] released due to delay (in tCO2e), and multiplying these together.

One starting point would be to ask how long it would have taken to get to zero net GHG if there had been international agreement in 1989, at the start of the IPCC, to put the world on track to tackle climate change (a deal that was killed by the USA, USSR, UK, Japan at the time), and what the total net emissions would have been on that trajectory, versus how they'll be if we achieve a 1.5&deg;C or 2&deg;C trajectory now.

I suspect no one's done it because it's not obvious what the value of the exercise would be: in the absence of a time machine, it doesn't really inform any decisions now.