Though we ourselves are by definition part of the universe and thus nature.
After all, if everything humanity does is pollution, why single any specific acts out?
How we see nature plays little role, in after-the-fact justifications or condemnations. In fact pollution could be justified under either view:
Humanity is different than nature: all we do is pollution, in the sense that is outside of nature. So why single any specific act out? Or other potential arguments: "We are better than nature, and we'll eventually just sort pollution out with our technology".
Humanitity is "just" nature: so what we do is natural, including pollution. No need to do something else, we just keep doing what comes natural to us, including polluting. Why consider huge heaps of human garbage any worse that we consider other animals creating their own waste?
This is a dogmatic statement influenced by religions that put humanity as a separate creation.
Humanity is part of nature. Fixing the world requires accepting that.
If you yourself can cut a tree down and do whatever else to make a piano, there's no world created by humans. It'll take you a while but in the end there's only you and your shiny new piano and nature.
If there is a distributed process with countless people and organizations using intricate mechanisms to build components of mechanisms that build mechanisms that extract natural resources for building mechanisms for preparing different parts that are eventually put together as a piano (which itself is almost a side effect, a minor detail almost no participant of the process sees or even knows about)... that's a world. If you click a button and have this thing show up at your house and not know a bit about what goes into it much less do it yourself... that's a world.
And then someone will go on being pedantic and bring forward bees and ant colonies and the like. Let's call it "a matter of degree/scale/breadth" this might shut them up!
There's so many modifiers to 'reading' that I, along with probably many readers, are unsure what your trying to express.
None the less, his music is great and can be enjoyed, like any other artists, without listening to the political and culture drivel that artists sadly often produce. They are easily captured and swayed by instinct tautological ideologies.
Just because it feels right does not mean it to be true.
My favorite rendition of his "My love wears forbidden colors"
Or maybe it is a bit more complex. And the story maybe begins with civilized people who explicitly wanted to conquer nature. To make it bow to mens will. And quite some still want to exactly this. They were the ones creating that artificial distinction.
The romanticism of nature that you are criticize, is more of a counter movement to that philosophy, that we are in fact part of nature and we have to find our balance within the greater cycles.