Some things I see in this article just do not make sense. Perhaps the article is too short or assumes one has read extensively about these "environmental" issues.
First WHY is steel and concrete unacceptable to an environmentalist? Both can be recycled - the steel can be remelted and reformed, the concrete crushed and used as filler or base material (as presently done in several concrete pads, driveways, roads...
It is mentioned that "large timbers are naturally fire-resistant" and "Timbers form an insulating and fireproof layer of char" however there is NOTHING natural about these wooden processed products that are intended for this construction use, they are stated to be "a composite of wood strands glued together" or "layers of wood fused together" (I can only assume that some type of binder is still needed). Since these are not natural timbers would not the glue itself be flammable and negate the char effect?
Finally the energy cost to manufacture these 'new' timbers. Are they more efficient overall or does the process of stripping the wood to fibers then reforming them add to environmental concerns such as energy usage and use of chemical treatments during the processing??
Looking forward to further discussion to 'clear' the air... so to speak