Guatemala vs Nicaragua: Cumulative CO₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre

Guatemala
38,562 tonnes per square kilometre
in 2023
Nicaragua
36,551 tonnes per square kilometre
in 2023
Guatemala rank
9th
Nicaragua rank
10th

Cumulative CO₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre over time

  • Guatemala
  • Nicaragua
010.0k20.0k30.0k40.0k196119922023

How they compare

Guatemala currently reports 38,562 tonnes per square kilometre against 36,551 tonnes per square kilometre in Nicaragua, a difference of 2,011 tonnes per square kilometre.

That makes Guatemala's figure about 1.1 times Nicaragua's.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Nicaragua ahead.

Guatemala ranks 9th and Nicaragua ranks 10th of 194 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Guatemala averaged higher in 2 and Nicaragua in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade Guatemala Nicaragua Difference Ahead
1960s 17,829 tonnes per square kilometre 21,432 tonnes per square kilometre 3,603 tonnes per square kilometre Nicaragua
1970s 19,841 tonnes per square kilometre 22,869 tonnes per square kilometre 3,027 tonnes per square kilometre Nicaragua
1980s 23,407 tonnes per square kilometre 24,820 tonnes per square kilometre 1,412 tonnes per square kilometre Nicaragua
1990s 28,177 tonnes per square kilometre 28,215 tonnes per square kilometre 37.51 tonnes per square kilometre Nicaragua
2000s 33,260 tonnes per square kilometre 34,058 tonnes per square kilometre 798.28 tonnes per square kilometre Nicaragua
2010s 36,126 tonnes per square kilometre 35,808 tonnes per square kilometre 318.34 tonnes per square kilometre Guatemala
2020s 38,156 tonnes per square kilometre 36,440 tonnes per square kilometre 1,716 tonnes per square kilometre Guatemala

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher cumulative co₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre, Guatemala or Nicaragua?
Guatemala, at 38,562 tonnes per square kilometre against 36,551 tonnes per square kilometre in Nicaragua as of 2023.
What is the difference in cumulative co₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre between Guatemala and Nicaragua?
2,011 tonnes per square kilometre, with Guatemala ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Nicaragua?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Guatemala and Nicaragua rank globally for cumulative co₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre?
Guatemala ranks 9th and Nicaragua ranks 10th of 194 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Cumulative CO₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Guatemala vs Nicaragua: Cumulative CO₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 21 September 2026, from https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/cumulative-co2-emissions-from-land-use-change-per-square-kilometre/guatemala/nicaragua/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/cumulative-co2-emissions-from-land-use-change-per-square-kilometre/guatemala/nicaragua/">Guatemala vs Nicaragua: Cumulative CO₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Cumulative CO₂ emissions from land-use change, per square kilometre
Unit
tonnes per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
194 places, 11,145 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Cumulative CO₂ emissions from land-use change divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.