This article is lucid. there are already concrete (magnesium based) alternative to concrete. But i do not think your article adresses the real problem. You solutions seem to favor centralized sources of truth and centralizes execution of controls.

Buidling codes are different in different places not just because thats a historical outcome, but because buiding the same way in morroco and san francisco is not a good plan. So instead you have ONE set of building codes (taking your idea to the extreme admittedly) that needs to apply everywhere. This is a different set of complications, confusion, and enforcement problems.

Building codes SHOULD be local, if just because the people who live there should control what happens there, and not just because one-size-fits-all is a terrible regulatory policy to execute.

Sure standards should be pulished, and localities can refer to them (this already happens). But what could and should really happen is _facilitation_ of implementing those local, federal and global standards.

I don't think you go far enough with some of you list. Ending subsidies for fossil fuels (I think science is starting to show that this is a terrible name) does not go far enough, why are there subsidies for markets that use fossil fuels? Roads, refineries, pipelines, farming, etc etc. The entire problem around the low relative cost of fossil fuels is that no one has any idea what they truly cost if fossil fuel companies had to subsiidize their markets themselves and pay for their own 'security' abroad.

carbon would get priced properly because consumers would feel the actual cost, both in the product and in the things that use the product.

Pretty sure most of the carbon issue would be resolved just by doing this, instead of centralizing control.