I don't believe this is possible for something as wide-ranging as the effects of increased climate change.
Every paper that attempt these estimates use a 'local' projection of (predicted change) * (current prices to mitigate those changes).
But even ignoring the huge error bars around the scale of changes we'll see, the large-scale changes that reach across all of society will also change all the prices as well; not to mention it's not easy to predict far future prices anyway.
This also ignores the fact that the marginal impact of a ton of CO2 in the future depends on how much CO2 is then in the air, which means you're now in the realm of predicting what current politicians will do ... which is inherently political, since it'll make some people look good or bad.
Which is just code for "I'll never support this because I'll never believe you". Dismissing something as "policital" is the easiest out. All it takes is for your political enemies to support something and you have a built-in excuse to refuse to believe it. That is exactly the behavior that led to the circumstance we're in right now, where literally half the voting population of the USA straight up refuses to recognize scientific consensus.
So... this isn't helpful. If you really want good analysis, get in there and help with it. Or at least be willing to accept something as "good enough". But what you wrote there is nothing more than a fancy excuse.