Sure, but I think the bone of contention is whether a carbon tax is a viable mechanism for funding UBI.
The reason why a carbon tax works well to efficiently reduce carbon emissions is pretty much the same reason it can't work well to transfer wealth.
EDIT: Another way to understand the relationship is that because consumption increases faster per additional income dollar as you move down the income scale[1], any actual wealth transfer is likely to result in greater carbon emissions.
The wealth transfer mechanism can be designed to account for that. For example, a negative income tax would work.
Another thing to consider, the tax is on the producers of the fossil fuels, not the consumers. And those producers are increasingly competing in markets with non-carbon alternatives. So it is unlikely that they can pass the full cost onto consumers, more likely the tax will be eating into their profits. And what does show up on the consumer side will likely show up as mild inflation. In an economy with an effective UBI, wages are more likely to track inflation as the labor market will have more negotiating power.
FWIW, I have no idea if a carbon tax alone is enough to fund UBI (or negative income tax). But it is certainly one source of revenue that I would fully support tapping into.
The reason why a carbon tax works well to efficiently reduce carbon emissions is pretty much the same reason it can't work well to transfer wealth.
EDIT: Another way to understand the relationship is that because consumption increases faster per additional income dollar as you move down the income scale[1], any actual wealth transfer is likely to result in greater carbon emissions.
[1] This paper has some graphs: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2...