It's called a "carbon fee & dividend" and an increasing number of people are advocating it.
(
https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/)
It's nowhere near enough to fund a UBI that most people could live on without additional assistance, but that's no reason not to do it. It just means you need to fund your UBI with other sources of revenue too. Really, I think the GP used the wrong word when they called the dividend a "UBI".
And it _really_ is the best policy. Even if it did nothing to reduce emissions, it's a matter of justice. I won't tell you that you can't fly across the country every single weekend or emit a gigaton of carbon mining bitcoin but, if you do, you _really_ should reimburse me and my 2-year-old daughter for the harm you're doing to our futures. Likewise, when I heat my ridiculous suburban mansion to 80F through the New York winter, I'm harming you and your children, so I should reimburse you.
But it WILL have a great effect on emissions (if ever implemented). Probably more than any other policy we might enact.
Some of the comments around here complain about how regressive a carbon tax is. But in fact it is only regressive when not combined with the dividend. The price of a poor person's carbon footprint as a fraction of their income or wealth IS larger than that of a wealthier person. But the fact is that most poor and urban working class people's dividends will be greater than the carbon fee they pay, while people who have giant houses, travel by air a lot, etc will pay more in fees than they receive in dividends.
This page (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/household-impact-study/) has a nice chart showing the fees and where they come from for an average household in each income quintile in the USA. The expected fees for each quintile (under a $15/ton carbon fee) are $173, $219, $252, $292, $381. On another page on the same site, you can find that the expected dividend (which just depends on the number of adults/children in the household) is $288.
Lastly, this policy is currently a bill in the US House of Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Innovation_and_Carbon_D...) and is currently "sponsored" (whatever that means) by 18% of the house. Sadly almost all democrats. I think the policy saw more republican support during the few years before the current administration, but I can't find the data too easily at this moment.
This bill and past ones like it include a schedule for the price of emissions to start low and increase over the next several decades. The tax itself is to be collected at mines, ports, and oil refineries, where fossil fuels first enter the economy. Regular people will only see it in the form of initially-very-small increases in the price of goods and services. And they'll get their dividend check or direct deposit every month. I don't think I know anyone who wouldn't love getting that check in the mail.