Ecuador vs Slovenia: Waste — Emissions
Waste — Emissions over time
- Ecuador
- Slovenia
How they compare
Slovenia currently reports 4.89 kt against 4.7 kt in Ecuador, a difference of 0.19 kt.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 32 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Ecuador ahead.
Ecuador ranks 65th and Slovenia ranks 64th of 145 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 2 and Slovenia in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Slovenia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 2.59 kt | 0.6084 kt | 1.98 kt | Ecuador |
| 2000s | 3.38 kt | 1.82 kt | 1.56 kt | Ecuador |
| 2010s | 4.09 kt | 7.88 kt | 3.79 kt | Slovenia |
| 2020s | 4.59 kt | 6.26 kt | 1.67 kt | Slovenia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher waste — emissions, Ecuador or Slovenia?
- Slovenia, at 4.89 kt against 4.7 kt in Ecuador as of 2023.
- What is the difference in waste — emissions between Ecuador and Slovenia?
- 0.19 kt, with Slovenia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Slovenia?
- 32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.
- How do Ecuador and Slovenia rank globally for waste — emissions?
- Ecuador ranks 65th and Slovenia ranks 64th of 145 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Waste — Emissions (CO2). 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