It’s a common trope in right-wing journalism; you just suggest the people whose views you find discomforting are hypocrites. “Greta Thunberg took a ride in a car once, therefore global warming is a hoax”.
Another problem with concrete is the high carbon footprint associated with the manufacture of cement. I thought I heard that fly ash (a byproduct of coal burning) was being investigated as a partial replacement for cement.
Edited to add, I believe “mass timber” construction (using large engineered wood beams) is the hot thing in sustainable buildings today.
Not so much being investigated but currently in use. There’s only so much to-spec material to go around though. That goes for other additives like natural pozzolans.
There are other cementitous materials with lower footprints and high availabilities, e.g. limestone calcined clay cement (LC3).
You can also change the clinkering process (resistive heating, carbon capture.)
And then there are these guys (last week’s Science cover story):
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg9556
DOI: 10.1126/science.abg9556
There are several published LCAs of nuclear power. This is a recent one:
https://www.iaea.org/publications/14725/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2020
Although I didn’t see on skimming a number attributed to concrete specifically. They may link to older data.