> I have a gut feeling that the energy (and pollution) costs of building a house based on cement/concrete/bricks are a lot bigger than the opportunity costs you gain from not cutting down some trees in order to build the same house
You've overlooked the cost of shipping the wood from the Americas.
Wood construction isn't used as much in Europe because it's much more expensive. Apart from a few pockets of environmentally important old growth forest, centuries of industry and warfare depleted European forest.
Huh, is this why the timber framing with clay brick or wattle and daub infill is so classically (old) European? Less wood needed, but unnecessary in the US with its plentiful trees?
Possibly. I know Scotland's traditional "bothy" construction style developed to need only one piece of structural lumber - the roof beam. The walls would be stone (available everywhere), and around the single beam on the roof was thatch or slate.
On the other hand, places like Estonia, Norway, and Romania have museums of traditional wooden construction including all-wood "stave churches". Europe was an extremely non-homogenous place until the late 20th century.
You've overlooked the cost of shipping the wood from the Americas.
Wood construction isn't used as much in Europe because it's much more expensive. Apart from a few pockets of environmentally important old growth forest, centuries of industry and warfare depleted European forest.
The UK set up the Forestry Commission after WW1 depleted forest cover to just 5%: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/103379