Concrete production creates large amounts of CO2. Wood production does not.

Also steel production procduces a lot of CO2. So much in fact that some steelworks are switching to hydrogen instead of coalbased for its steel.

It would be nice to see some numbers. It might be true that this building created less CO2 but if it cost a lot more than concrete then it may be better to just build concrete and use the money you saved to remove CO2 some other way

Ok so below were some comments.

TL;DR: carbon sink, pulp wood rather than old growth, trees get replanted.

I think that is all fine and dandy, but I personally would prefer an article simply describing the building. I don't think it's necessary to go the "this is green" or "better than concrete" route. For me good is good, that's it. Don't need to play towards a debate.

In most of the world, people consider climate change scientifically proven. There isn't a debate. In Norway, the building is featured as "green" because that is desirable in a world where we want to limit CO2 emissions and other environmental harm

You missed what I was saying. Using wood is highly dependent on region.

In other places, the greenest building is the one that is already standing. Even if it may be made from concrete.

Concrete production actually produces a surprising amount of co2 globally it is the source of 5% of all co2.

There's work underway to make concrete carbon negative "greener" by mixing it in a sealed container and adding other chemicals to it to bind the CO2 and added carbon as a solid component of the finished concrete. I can't recall if it's the lime or Portland cement step of the process.

What debate?

A generalising debate about which construction techniques are "better".

Every place has it's own most adequate materials. In Norway it may be wood, in Japan it may be bamboo, but in many places it is concrete or some upgrade thereof.

I didn't like that the article is basically an advert.