> it’s totally fine to show a preference for new vehicles

If you don't care about your environmental impact. I'm getting tired of these talking points where you shouldn't assume any kind of responsibility for your "preferences".

> If you don't care about your environmental impact

My point is the environmental effect is de minimis. Possibly positive. The old car is still being driven, just by someone else. Given it’s an EV, it’s likely—on the margin—pushing an ICE vehicle off the road.

This is logically sound when phrased like this but it is not the reality. Studies show you should drive a car into the ground to achieve maximum environmental benefit (or minimum impact is more accurate)

This is realized when you look at vast junkyards of unused cars in the US.

>Studies show [...]

1. source?

2. what is their methodology for "maximum environmental benefit", and how do they account for the fact that when you buy a new car that costs 5 tons CO2e to produce and sell it 2 years later, that you're not on the hook for all 5 tons of emissions? That said, the cost of buying cars every 2 years probably isn't zero either. There are transaction costs and at the margins you're probably pushing the average lifetime of a car ever so slightly lower, thereby causing more emissions to be generated from manufacturing. However on the flip side, OP mentioned that he was doing this with teslas (ie. electric cars), and they're better for the environment compared with ICE cars. If his actions are displacing used ICE cars, he could be actually doing a net good by effectively subsidizing the replacement of ICE cars with electric.

>This is realized when you look at vast junkyards of unused cars in the US.

The tight used car market begs to differ.

Fallacy of relative privation.