Because roads can be made from something cleaner? If so, what, and why aren't we already using that something?
Value wasn't really the question. Environmental care costs more. It typically means doing something that is in opposition to monetary value in order to make gain towards an environmental goal. Although, rarely, those are also in alignment to be mutually beneficial.
Is this such a rare case? I'm skeptical.
All sorts of things can go into aggregate for roads: various forms of sand, stone, concrete, etc. anything you can make gravel out of really. If you can instead somehow reclaim the concrete and/or the cement within the concrete for structural use rather than use as aggregate, you can displace more carbon emissions by preventing the manufacture of new cement/concrete.
Part of what makes the article and methodology linked here interesting is that it a) uses waste heat which b) is already theoretically able to come from renewable sources and c) can be used to to support manufacturing of structural components further upstream in the lifecycle of cement/concrete.