Linking the tax to UBI is bad. It creates a perverse incentive to continue fossil fuel use to fund the UBI. AND, it runs out.
1AC Howard 17, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maine, USA. He is Co-Editor of Basic Income Studies, and Coordinator of the US Basic Income Guarantee Network. (Michael, “A Carbon Dividend as a Step toward a Basic Income in the United States: Prospects and Problems,” https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2017/07/05/a-carbon-dividend-as-a-step-toward-a-basic-income-in-the-united-states-prospects-and-problems/)//BB
There are two concerns about carbon fees and dividends that are specific to the question of whether they constitute a step toward a basic income. First, a carbon dividend by design will fade away. As the price of carbon rises, demand will fall. Eventually, the declining demand effect will surpass the rising price effect, and the dividend will begin to decline. The policy is driven primarily by the environmental problem, and the dividend is one use of the revenue, motivated by considerations of justice and political feasibility. (In fact, it is conceivable that if the dividend were to become more important than the environmental tax that funds it, it could lead to perverse efforts to reduce the environmental impact in order to prolong and maximise the dividend. It would be useful to see some modelling of this possibility.) Once the environmental problem is solved, there is no longer a compelling reason to provide a dividend. Thus, viewed as a basic income, a carbon dividend is only a temporary fix.