fudge.dredd wrote: I dont read Guardian articles lad.
fudge.dredd wrote: In fact the following comes from a Guardian article

The Guardian wrote: Although some reports have claimed the Amazon produces 20% of the world’s oxygen, it is not clear where this figure originated. The true figure is likely to be no more than 6%
The issue is not so much the oxygen as the carbon absorption and retention. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas affecting recent climate change. As The Guardian article addresses in the very next point.
The Guardian wrote: So should we still be concerned?
Extremely. The fires are mostly illegal and they are degrading the world’s biggest terrestrial carbon sink and most important home for biodiversity.
fudge.dredd wrote: Secondly, we have more trees now in the world than we did 35 years ago. In fact, more by over 2 million square KM.
Pacific Standard wrote: That "greening", however, masks the ecological impacts of replacing diverse natural landscapes with monoculture crops. So while Earth may presently have more trees than 35 years ago, the study confirms that some of its most productive and biodiverse biomes - especially tropical forests and savannas[sic] - are significantly more damaged and degraded, reducing their resilience and capacity to afford ecosystem services.