Very positive in terms of UBI being extremely beneficial, even before more people lose their jobs if that was possible, because of the positive effects it would have even now. I like to use the Google page rank algorithm and how it improved when a UBI was added to the algorithm as an analogy for how much of an upgrade it would be to our economy as well, for those who can take that reference.

Negative in terms of future prospects, given our "only human" leaders and conservativism of systems which doesn't work. I like conservativism as a bias IF there are good and sustainable systems to be conservatve about, a minimum viable product of cultural progress such that our way of living could in principle last in forseable perpetuity. At that point, conservativism becomes a vital human tendency. Conservativism + a sustainable system that everyone can agree works for everyone = we made it humans.

Another point to address with UBI is sustainability. 1000 people with 1000 dollars spend more and on more necessary, diverse, and economically efficient products than 1 person with 1000000 dollars. If supply follow demand then the marked would shift towards accommodating and safeguarding the interest of the new class of customers, the extremely price sensitive and many, self interest and altruism aligned in terms of people, but disaligned with the environment we rely on.

UBI has been modeled by economists to grow an economy, which statistically leads to more unsustainable pollution. Therefore a carbon fee and dividend is absolutely necessary to be implemented in conjunction with UBI. Whitch is a dividend/transition grant, funded by a steadily raising carbon tax as upstream as possible, to let the market most efficently decide how to deal with the cost most efficiently, including and at some point necessitating carbon neutrality. In this system, analogously to a UBI (except temporary by nature) each person gets the average carbon tax burden as compensation for the carbon tax. Those who pollute more than average compensate those who pollute less than average fairly, like an automatically traded quota. Since businesses owners and luxury spenders pull the average way over the median, most people, around (but depending on the country) 70% of people are earning money, which makes it in principle democratically viable even of pure self interest, given a rational population.

But that unfortunately only takes care of the carbon footprint of a UBI caused growth, not other footprints such as the other great threat to biodiversity and sustainability: human land use. I'm a big fan of pigovian taxes, and frankly I don't have the slightest why governments would use anything else instead. The pigovian (behavior altering) tax equivalent to a carbon fee, but for land use, is the Land value tax.. It's also absolutely necessary as far as I can see. It encourages efficient and minimal use of land area, while giving the whole vertical axis for "free" therefore not stifling development like other taxes such as the property tax. The incentive pressure of replacing the property tax with LVT is for humans to expand upward in the air, and not outwards in urban sprawl. It increases the supply of housing by ending passive investment in favor of encouraging active investment/value generation. It's called the perfect tax by economists.

As opposed to the carbon fee, or literally any other taxes, the LVT doesn't reduce the taxed; land isn't going anywhere. And neither is land use, the foundation for everything. It's the perfect tax to fund a UBI.

I woke and boke today, I have a problem, but hopefully I managed to convey why these concepts need to be fitted together for UBI to be a part of a coherent solution overall, and not a solution that exacerbates other problems.