Naoero vs Papua New Guinea: Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture

Naoero
0 units per square kilometre
in 2019
Papua New Guinea
0.0001 units per square kilometre
in 2019
Naoero rank
190th
Papua New Guinea rank
188th

Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture over time

  • Naoero
  • Papua New Guinea
0000196119902019

How they compare

Papua New Guinea currently reports 0.0001 units per square kilometre against 0 units per square kilometre in Naoero, a difference of 0.0001 units per square kilometre.

That makes Papua New Guinea's figure about 2.9 times Naoero's.

Across all 59 years both countries report, Papua New Guinea has been ahead every year.

Naoero ranks 190th and Papua New Guinea ranks 188th of 190 countries.

Papua New Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Naoero Papua New Guinea Difference Ahead
1960s 0 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre 0 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
1970s 0 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
1980s 0 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
1990s 0 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
2000s 0 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea
2010s 0 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre 0.0001 units per square kilometre Papua New Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher emission totals - emissions (co2eq) (ar5) - manure left on pasture, Naoero or Papua New Guinea?
Papua New Guinea, at 0.0001 units per square kilometre against 0 units per square kilometre in Naoero as of 2019.
What is the difference in emission totals - emissions (co2eq) (ar5) - manure left on pasture between Naoero and Papua New Guinea?
0.0001 units per square kilometre, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Naoero and Papua New Guinea?
59 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2019.
How do Naoero and Papua New Guinea rank globally for emission totals - emissions (co2eq) (ar5) - manure left on pasture?
Naoero ranks 190th and Papua New Guinea ranks 188th of 190 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture, per square kilometre. 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

Naoero vs Papua New Guinea: Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 08 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/emission-totals-emissions-co2eq-ar5-manure-left-on-pasture-per-square-kilometre/naoero/papua-new-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 Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/emission-totals-emissions-co2eq-ar5-manure-left-on-pasture-per-square-kilometre/naoero/papua-new-guinea/">Naoero vs Papua New Guinea: Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture, per square kilometre
Unit
units per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
190 places, 10,156 data points, 1961–2019
Last refreshed

Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure left on Pasture divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.