Yes, quite easily:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about-...
https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/
Also on that same page you can enable some of the 'Annoyances' filters. Just be aware that some of them block social media buttons (FB/Twitter like/follow embeds), which you may not want.
I think that if I'm visiting a website and using its bandwidth, the website ought to get paid. If the ads are too egregious, then using the website isn't "worth the cost" and I go to a different website.
I do however pay for Scroll[1], and I use Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection. Due to the latter, many websites think I'm using an adblocker and complain, which really irks me.
---
Only when you make a purchase based on an ad are you supporting anyone. At that point you should just buy the better product and support the website by sending them money instead of buying a shitty product that has advertising priced in.
Of course, practically speaking it doesn't just "happen" to block ads; that's a major motivation for its development, and so we usually just refer to it as an ad blocker.
To answer your question directly: if you want ads and no cookie popups, disable the ad lists and enable the cookie popup list.
Yes, at that point you may as well just install the other addon, but the uBlock method preserves a key advantage: the ability to combine multiple cookie popup block lists. This is useful in case several people are making lists that cover different corners of the internet.
Example website for which blocking the cookie popup does not work with uBlock Origin: https://tweakers.net/
I tested on Ubuntu and macOS with the latest Firefox (clean profile) and Chromium and i get the cookie popup/wall, even with ALL default uBO filter lists enabled, and also with the IDCAC list enabled in uBO. Screenshot: https://imgur.com/jcr4EuP
However i just tested with https://www.browserling.com/ which uses Windows 7/Internet Explorer 11 and here i do not see the 'cookie popup/wall' but instead i see a blue 'cookie banner' (which is easier to block with uBO.)
Ghostery doesn't have as many bells and whistles, but it does greatly minimize the main annoyances out there, and it doesn't slow anything down noticeably.
It might all be a moot point by this time, since Youtube has changed how they load in such a way that it stutters no matter what because it is so busy downloading absolutely every item on a page all at one time instead of prioritizing the video stream like it did about a decade ago (back when you could pause a video and it would download fully even while not yet playing, thus avoiding the bottlenecks altogether...).
Ironically that puts me back to pausing everything first just to give all the useless off-screen crap enough bandwidth to load without ruining the video experience.
No matter how much faster technology gets, they find a way to make it more and more sluggish every time.
Not recommended over uBO.
Since Youtube chokes anyway nowadays (I did manage to stave it off for a few years), I might as well go back to uBO.
(Disclaimer: I worked there at the time)
If uBO is really responsible for this, you should probably check the box "Ignore generic cosmetic filters" in "Filter lists" pane. For instance, this is the default in Firefox for Android, I consider it's best for less powerful devices.
But now it'll be hard to tell, because Youtube has changed the way it downloads stuff in the background without prioritizing the stream. uBO definitely blocked a whole lot more noise than Ghostery does.