Latvia vs Uruguay: Waste — Emissions
Waste — Emissions over time
- Latvia
- Uruguay
How they compare
Uruguay currently reports 0.206 kt against 0.205 kt in Latvia, a difference of 0.001 kt.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 32 shared years of data; in 1992 it was Latvia ahead.
Latvia ranks 133rd and Uruguay ranks 132nd of 201 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Latvia averaged higher in 3 and Uruguay in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Latvia | Uruguay | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 0.1886 kt | 0.1825 kt | 0.0061 kt | Latvia |
| 2000s | 0.1732 kt | 0.1779 kt | 0.0047 kt | Uruguay |
| 2010s | 0.1912 kt | 0.187 kt | 0.0042 kt | Latvia |
| 2020s | 0.203 kt | 0.201 kt | 0.002 kt | Latvia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher waste — emissions, Latvia or Uruguay?
- Uruguay, at 0.206 kt against 0.205 kt in Latvia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in waste — emissions between Latvia and Uruguay?
- 0.001 kt, with Uruguay ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Latvia and Uruguay?
- 32 years are reported by both, from 1992 to 2023.
- How do Latvia and Uruguay rank globally for waste — emissions?
- Latvia ranks 133rd and Uruguay ranks 132nd of 201 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Waste — Emissions (N2O). 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