No, it just means that self reflection must be based on something other than an arbitrary and meaningless distinction between things that existed before humanity and things that existed after humanity.
If we see ourselves as part of nature, but with a unique ability to impact more of nature than most other forces within nature, I think we would have a greater imperative to rectify mistakes we have made, vs seeing issues like climate change as mostly impact “others.”
It's a philosophical work about leavers and takers and what is the nature of both nature and humans, as well as their role in it. It's told from the perspective of a man taking instruction from a speaking ape.
It is something I've read many times and get something new every time I read it. Given the context of this thread, I'm not sure I could recommend a more salient book.
All evidence and theories point to climate change being caused by humans. This interpretation does nothing to change that conclusion. My view is that it is an entirely useless distinction to make. If climate change were instead caused by natural sources of carbon dioxide, it would be no less a crisis, and would require no less of an intervention.