I admit I did not read the entire publication, but, at least at face value, this seems somewhat absurd to me. Within the past couple hundred years humans have built massive structures in cities that should last for many millions (hundreds of millions?) of years. I mean, Manhattan may be under water in 100 million years (or, much sooner), but all those gigantic steel, concrete, plastic and glass structures aren't just…
There is better argument and it is surface natural resources. We know, that before industry took off we had huge amount of natural resources almost lying on the ground. Now many of crucial resources have to be dug from huge depths or recovered from dilute sources. I can't imagine a previous industrial civilization leaving huge amount of resources available on the surface. Almost by definition, industry is about scali…
Over shorter time scales this argument mostly holds, though one can imagine an intelligence with technology but with less expansionary drive and conspicuous consumption than humans. This intelligence may use resources more slowly.