By definition yes, but you need to prove the externality is there and actually worse than your proposed tax.

I was worried that was your position. If you still need further proof of global warming and it's deleterious effects then providing proof is impossible.

Not proof of global warming, proof that this is the most efficacious tax to undertake and will not distort the market to be worse.

It’s not practically possible to prove that something is the most efficient alternative – you’d have to exhaustively show that all possible alternatives are worse. It’s more reasonable for you to provide an even better alternative, since you seem to believe that one exists. Once two specific options are named, the two can be compared in earnest.