If this were the case, you would have to take it up with the translators of the 4th century. The Greek chosen by the Nicene Council was homoousion, which the Latins decided to translate as consubstantial.
One in being is a better rendering than consubstanctial for a number of reasons. Primarily, one in being contrasts with similar in being, homoiousion, a word that differs by an single iota and was used by Arians. Consubstantial does not really have that contrast.
An even deeper problem is that being, ousia, is unambiguous, while the Latin substance which translates ousia, is compositionally similar to another Greek word, hypostasis, person. Sub and hypo both mean below, while stance and stasis are forms of to stand in both languages. But substance does not translate hypostasis, it translates being. The fundamental “3 hypostasis in 1 ousia” became “3 persona in 1 substance.” If you are careful, there is no problem, but if you want to preserve cognates across languages, as the modern translators were to do, it can get messy.
Consubstantial has another problem that developed later. Consubstantiation was used in the debates over the Eucharist in a way that is in no way like consubstantial. In the one, two persons share one substance, while in the other two substances coexist. That creates an opportunity for complete confusion.
One in being is by far the clearer expression of the Greek chosen by the Nicene fathers.