Azerbaijan vs Libya: Waste — Emissions
Waste — Emissions over time
- Azerbaijan
- Libya
How they compare
Azerbaijan currently reports 106 kt against 101 kt in Libya, a difference of 5 kt.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 32 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Libya ahead.
Azerbaijan ranks 83rd and Libya ranks 85th of 197 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Azerbaijan averaged higher in 2 and Libya in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Azerbaijan | Libya | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 60.05 kt | 74.46 kt | 14.41 kt | Libya |
| 2000s | 73.15 kt | 87.8 kt | 14.65 kt | Libya |
| 2010s | 95.62 kt | 89.86 kt | 5.76 kt | Azerbaijan |
| 2020s | 104.5 kt | 97.72 kt | 6.78 kt | Azerbaijan |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher waste — emissions, Azerbaijan or Libya?
- Azerbaijan, at 106 kt against 101 kt in Libya as of 2023.
- What is the difference in waste — emissions between Azerbaijan and Libya?
- 5 kt, with Azerbaijan ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Azerbaijan and Libya?
- 32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.
- How do Azerbaijan and Libya rank globally for waste — emissions?
- Azerbaijan ranks 83rd and Libya ranks 85th of 197 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Waste — Emissions (CH4). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
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