China, Hong Kong SAR vs Equatorial Guinea: Manure applied to Soils — Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O

China, Hong Kong SAR
1.06 kt
in 2050
Equatorial Guinea
1.11 kt
in 2050
China, Hong Kong SAR rank
192nd
Equatorial Guinea rank
191st

Manure applied to Soils — Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O over time

  • China, Hong Kong SAR
  • Equatorial Guinea
05101520196120052050

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 1.11 kt against 1.06 kt in China, Hong Kong SAR, a difference of 0.05 kt.

That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 1.1 times China, Hong Kong SAR's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 65 shared years of data; in 1961 it was China, Hong Kong SAR ahead.

China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 192nd and Equatorial Guinea ranks 191st of 195 countries.

Across the 9 decades both report, China, Hong Kong SAR averaged higher in 8 and Equatorial Guinea in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade China, Hong Kong SAR Equatorial Guinea Difference Ahead
1960s 11.36 kt 0.4211 kt 10.94 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
1970s 17.6 kt 0.5114 kt 17.09 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
1980s 18.78 kt 0.5857 kt 18.19 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
1990s 8.89 kt 0.6969 kt 8.19 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
2000s 5.82 kt 0.7897 kt 5.03 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
2010s 6.72 kt 0.8745 kt 5.84 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
2020s 8 kt 0.9275 kt 7.07 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
2030s 0.954 kt 0.9275 kt 0.0265 kt China, Hong Kong SAR
2050s 1.06 kt 1.11 kt 0.053 kt Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher manure applied to soils — emissions (co2eq) from n2o, China, Hong Kong SAR or Equatorial Guinea?
Equatorial Guinea, at 1.11 kt against 1.06 kt in China, Hong Kong SAR as of 2050.
What is the difference in manure applied to soils — emissions (co2eq) from n2o between China, Hong Kong SAR and Equatorial Guinea?
0.05 kt, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China, Hong Kong SAR and Equatorial Guinea?
65 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2050.
How do China, Hong Kong SAR and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for manure applied to soils — emissions (co2eq) from n2o?
China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 192nd and Equatorial Guinea ranks 191st of 195 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Manure applied to Soils — Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5). 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

China, Hong Kong SAR vs Equatorial Guinea: Manure applied to Soils — Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved 13 September 2026, from https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/manure-applied-to-soils-emissions-co2eq-from-n2o-ar5-fao-tier-1/china-hong-kong-sar/equatorial-guinea/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://climate.statizoid.com/compare/manure-applied-to-soils-emissions-co2eq-from-n2o-ar5-fao-tier-1/china-hong-kong-sar/equatorial-guinea/">China, Hong Kong SAR vs Equatorial Guinea: Manure applied to Soils — Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Manure applied to Soils — Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5)
Unit
kt
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Licence
CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO (FAO)
Coverage
247 places, 14,675 data points, 1961–2050
Last refreshed

The FAOSTAT domain on Emissions Totals summarizes the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disseminated in the FAOSTAT Climate Change domains of emissions from agrifood systems. Data are computed following the Tier 1 methods of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National greenhouse gas (GHG) Inventories (IPCC, 1996; 1997; 2000; 2002; 2006; 2014). Emissions from other economic sectors as defined by the IPCC are also disseminated in the domain for completeness. Methodological details can be found at: https://files-faostat.fao.org/production/GT/GT_en.pdf