Of course politicians should be the one who decide the rules. That's how democracy works...
Keep in mind that the jet fuel that's used to transport all the world's hipsters to “experience the world” is not taxed at all – or does that hit too close to home even for a person who doesn't own a car? A life that's aimed at solely minimising emissions is a bleak one, which is why it's not the will of the majority.
What about the jet fuel that's used for the other 98% of people who fly on a regular basis? Is that less polluting, or are you just jealous of the people who travel internationally for leisure? You're not making any sense, unless you're deluded enough to think that those are the only people who fly. "does that hit too close to home even for a person who doesn't own a car?"
Again, that makes no sense. Why would car ownership affect the impact of jet fuel pollution? If it's the "hipsters" you're concerned about, wouldn't those be the people who are already offsetting the environmental cost of air travel by using public transport and/or unmotorised travel and thus polluting less than car owners?
In other words, you seem to be more interested at attacking a threadbare strawman than evaluate what's actually happening. It's pretty sad, when the actual reason for taxation is pretty clear (to encourage less polluting methods of transport where one reasonably exists, which may not be the case for many air routes).
The real kicker? Jet fuel is actually taxed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...
We do that here in the UK. The difference between a small economical car and a giant SUV is a factor of 5 (£110 for a small car vs £515 for a huge car, plus a couple of lower bands for electric and 'green' cars). It really isn't enough make anyone who wants to drive a big car choose something else. It needs to be more like 50 times more for a big car rather than 5, but politicians are too scared to introduce that.