I hear what you're saying and I don't really disagree. But, at the risk of sounding like I'm not an environmentalist and I don't care about poor people, a new 1

I hear what you're saying and I don't really disagree. But, at the risk of sounding like I'm not an environmentalist and I don't care about poor people, a new 1990s car today is still going to be better than a lot of what I see lower SES people driving today- if they're able to afford to drive anything. You said it yourself: cars from the 1990s might last 100k miles! You think a poor person today is going to buy any used car that has 100k miles of life left? I highly doubt it. As for the safety and emissions standards- you're right. That's a big part of what has driven up the price of cars. And while I know that they are less safe, were they really that unsafe? I mean, the 90s had airbags, seat belts, ABS brakes (at least some models). At the end of the day, I'm not saying I would be happy that a poor person could only afford the safety of a 1990s car. But what I am saying is that it's still better than what they have access to today. Ideally, we just wouldn't have people so poor that they can't afford safe transportation. For emissions, specifically, I don't want poor people to have to pay the cost of saving our environment. I know a bunch of people who are financially comfortable enough to have multiple cars and/or recreational boats- let them pay for it. I'd be fine adjusting my wish to "1990s standards car + modern emissions standards, as long as the government subsidizes it such that it still would cost 1990s prices".