Yet none (?) have a tax on kerosine. Which is arguably worse for the environment for multiple reasons. Airplanes are a lot less efficient than buses, ships or trains.
Also airplanes release their exhausts up in the atmosphere which is worse for global warming.
There's a problem in that it's effectively banned by international treaty as part of the ICAO. I believe people are working on changing this but it will be slow going.
It requires full international cooperation, otherwise carries will tend to tank where taxes are lower. Not that that is always possible: if you land in Frankfurt and your deposit is empty, you will still need to tank in Frankfurt.
But, without international cooperation, fly routes could become distorted because of kerosine tax effects.
The UK has the Air Passenger Duty. Which is kind of similar (you are charged more for flying a farther distance). So there are ways of structuring it legally.
Not great, as it's passenger based there's no incentive to fly on a cleaner plane, or on a busier plane. A 747 that's only 25% full will cost the same as a 787 that's 99% full.
There are lots of taxes (and subsidies) on air transport, and no real alternative to fossil fuels for powering planes. Adding a kerosene tax - instead of, say, a "landing tax" or a grant of land to build an airport - would just slosh the money around a bit, it wouldn't create an incentive for people to take electric planes.
