Wood is an interesting material: It is biodegradable and it's production is cheap and captures CO2.
...but that particular benefit is lost if it biodegrades.
I do wonder if long-intended-lifespan wood materials, like the cross-laminated timber used to build this wooden skyscraper (https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscraper-revoluti...) could consume enough volume to make a meaningful dent in the carbon balance for the near/mid term of the next decades/century.
Easy, shoot it into space! /s
For instance the lumber in a building might stay in use for 100 years. Even if we aim for sustainability instead of our exponential growth pyramid schemes, every wooden structure ties up that carbon for its life span, after which another will be built. If the number of buildings we needs declines, we can plant more forests in the space we are no longer using.
I'm no carpenter but I'd suspect the downsides are that it's biodegradable (and hence it will rot and things will eat it), it's a biological material and so its properties are going to be somewhat inconsistent, and it's very labour intensive to build with.
I'd also be curious just how cheap it is per strength (not weight or volume) compared with steel. I'd suspect the comparison comes out heavily in steel's favour or we'd be using way more wood.