Pakistan vs Sao Tome and Principe: Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management, annual growth

Pakistan
3.59 % change on previous year
in 2019
Sao Tome and Principe
3.76 % change on previous year
in 2019
Pakistan rank
18th
Sao Tome and Principe rank
16th

Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management, annual growth over time

  • Pakistan
  • Sao Tome and Principe
-2002040196219902019

How they compare

Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 3.76 % change on previous year against 3.59 % change on previous year in Pakistan, a difference of 0.17 % change on previous year.

The two have swapped places 24 times across 58 shared years of data; in 1962 it was Sao Tome and Principe ahead.

Pakistan ranks 18th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 16th of 193 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Pakistan averaged higher in 3 and Sao Tome and Principe in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Pakistan Sao Tome and Principe Difference Ahead
1960s 2.52 % change on previous year -2.93 % change on previous year 5.45 % change on previous year Pakistan
1970s 1.86 % change on previous year 0.3992 % change on previous year 1.46 % change on previous year Pakistan
1980s 3.4 % change on previous year 2.45 % change on previous year 0.9477 % change on previous year Pakistan
1990s 2.67 % change on previous year 3.65 % change on previous year 0.9842 % change on previous year Sao Tome and Principe
2000s 3.43 % change on previous year 9.3 % change on previous year 5.87 % change on previous year Sao Tome and Principe
2010s 3.7 % change on previous year 3.89 % change on previous year 0.1946 % change on previous year Sao Tome and Principe

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher emission totals - emissions (ch4) - manure management, annual growth, Pakistan or Sao Tome and Principe?
Sao Tome and Principe, at 3.76 % change on previous year against 3.59 % change on previous year in Pakistan as of 2019.
What is the difference in emission totals - emissions (ch4) - manure management, annual growth between Pakistan and Sao Tome and Principe?
0.17 % change on previous year, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Pakistan and Sao Tome and Principe?
58 years are reported by both, from 1962 to 2019.
How do Pakistan and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for emission totals - emissions (ch4) - manure management, annual growth?
Pakistan ranks 18th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 16th of 193 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management, annual growth rate. 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

Pakistan vs Sao Tome and Principe: Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management, annual growth. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 22 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/emission-totals-emissions-ch4-manure-management-annual-growth-rate/pakistan/sao-tome-and-principe/

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://reference.statizoid.com/compare/emission-totals-emissions-ch4-manure-management-annual-growth-rate/pakistan/sao-tome-and-principe/">Pakistan vs Sao Tome and Principe: Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management, annual growth</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management, annual growth rate
Unit
% change on previous year
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
193 places, 10,140 data points, 1962–2019
Last refreshed

The year-on-year percentage change in Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management. Computed from consecutive annual observations; years either side of a gap are skipped rather than bridged.