Turkmenistan vs Zimbabwe: Cumulative CO₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled

Turkmenistan
2.92 billion tonnes
in 2024
Zimbabwe
2.93 billion tonnes
in 2024
Turkmenistan rank
83rd
Zimbabwe rank
81st

Cumulative CO₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled over time

  • Turkmenistan
  • Zimbabwe
01.0B2.0B3.0B185019372024

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 2.93 billion tonnes against 2.92 billion tonnes in Turkmenistan, a difference of 11.08 million tonnes.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 122 shared years of data; in 1903 it was Turkmenistan ahead.

Turkmenistan ranks 83rd and Zimbabwe ranks 81st of 194 countries.

Across the 13 decades both report, Turkmenistan averaged higher in 1 and Zimbabwe in 12.

Head to head by decade

Decade Turkmenistan Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1900s 33.37 million tonnes 13.05 million tonnes 20.32 million tonnes Turkmenistan
1910s 44.93 million tonnes 49.10 million tonnes 4.16 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1920s 55.87 million tonnes 116.71 million tonnes 60.84 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1930s 76.42 million tonnes 216.53 million tonnes 140.10 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1940s 113.51 million tonnes 366.16 million tonnes 252.65 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1950s 188.15 million tonnes 572.24 million tonnes 384.09 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1960s 332.87 million tonnes 803.53 million tonnes 470.66 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1970s 537.75 million tonnes 1.07 billion tonnes 532.14 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1980s 827.69 million tonnes 1.41 billion tonnes 578.91 million tonnes Zimbabwe
1990s 1.18 billion tonnes 1.91 billion tonnes 725.89 million tonnes Zimbabwe
2000s 1.62 billion tonnes 2.48 billion tonnes 862.71 million tonnes Zimbabwe
2010s 2.21 billion tonnes 2.81 billion tonnes 606.14 million tonnes Zimbabwe
2020s 2.74 billion tonnes 2.91 billion tonnes 167.67 million tonnes Zimbabwe

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher cumulative co₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled, Turkmenistan or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 2.93 billion tonnes against 2.92 billion tonnes in Turkmenistan as of 2024.
What is the difference in cumulative co₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled between Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe?
11.08 million tonnes, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe?
122 years are reported by both, from 1903 to 2024.
How do Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe rank globally for cumulative co₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled?
Turkmenistan ranks 83rd and Zimbabwe ranks 81st of 194 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Cumulative CO₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled. 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

Turkmenistan vs Zimbabwe: Cumulative CO₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 21 September 2026, from https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/cumulative-co2-emissions-including-land-use-change-gaps-filled/turkmenistan/zimbabwe/

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-including-land-use-change-gaps-filled/turkmenistan/zimbabwe/">Turkmenistan vs Zimbabwe: Cumulative CO₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Cumulative CO₂ emissions including land-use change, gaps filled
Unit
tonnes
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
194 places, 21,015 data points, 1850–2024
Last refreshed

Cumulative CO₂ emissions including land-use change with 79 missing years estimated by linear interpolation between the nearest real observations. Only gaps of 4 years or fewer are filled, and never beyond the first or last actual measurement — these are filled holes, not forecasts.