No it is not, not really a factor, and that is why I am often disgusted at the whole green movement, which I detest with passion, mainly due to their own blind pursuit of agenda, blind in the sense that their scientific foundation is resting on sand, metaphorically speaking. The impact of trees on the atmospheric levels of oxygen is comparatively very insignificant.
The vast, colossal majority of oxygen is produced by much more primitive and diminutive lifeforms, such as primarily the ocean phytoplankton, which is the chief factor in the CO2 reduction as well as O2 increase. There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event.
The chief problem with climate change is that it is destabilising and transition periods are always rough. For one, status quo is very much welcomed in geopolitical arena, as no one planned for such drastic changes that will surely follow. Then you will have the massive extinctions, with other species severely shrinking in population. Climate is swift to change, speaking as a palaeontologist, whereas flora and fauna will take millions of years to fully adapt.
Bookmarks