Bangladesh vs Macau, China: Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - Packaging

Bangladesh
2.15
in 2015
Macau, China
1.87
in 2015
Bangladesh rank
92nd
Macau, China rank
94th

Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - Packaging over time

  • Bangladesh
  • Macau, China
012345199020022015

How they compare

Bangladesh currently reports 2.15 against 1.87 in Macau, China, a difference of 0.28.

That makes Bangladesh's figure about 1.1 times Macau, China's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 26 shared years of data; in 1990 it was Macau, China ahead.

Bangladesh ranks 92nd and Macau, China ranks 94th of 203 countries.

Macau, China has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Bangladesh Macau, China Difference Ahead
1990s 0.2002 2.63 2.42 Macau, China
2000s 0.4907 4.17 3.68 Macau, China
2010s 0.977 1.84 0.8666 Macau, China

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher food ghg emissions by system stage (share of total) - packaging, Bangladesh or Macau, China?
Bangladesh, at 2.15 against 1.87 in Macau, China as of 2015.
What is the difference in food ghg emissions by system stage (share of total) - packaging between Bangladesh and Macau, China?
0.28, with Bangladesh ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bangladesh and Macau, China?
26 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2015.
How do Bangladesh and Macau, China rank globally for food ghg emissions by system stage (share of total) - packaging?
Bangladesh ranks 92nd and Macau, China ranks 94th of 203 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A. EDGAR-FOOD data. Figshare, doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13476666 (2021), published as Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - Packaging. 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

Bangladesh vs Macau, China: Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - Packaging. Statizoid, drawing on Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A. EDGAR-FOOD data. Figshare, doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13476666 (2021). Retrieved 03 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/food-ghg-emissions-by-system-stage-share-of-total-packaging/bangladesh/macao-sar-china/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/food-ghg-emissions-by-system-stage-share-of-total-packaging/bangladesh/macao-sar-china/">Bangladesh vs Macau, China: Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - Packaging</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Food GHG emissions by system stage (Share of total) - Packaging
Source
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A. EDGAR-FOOD data. Figshare, doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13476666 (2021)
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
203 places, 5,278 data points, 1990–2015
Last refreshed

Food GHG emissions disaggregated by system stage are generated from EDGAR-FOOD, a global emission inventory of GHGs from the food systems. EDGAR-FOOD has been developed to aid the understanding of the activities underlying the energy demand and use, agriculture and land use change emissions associated with the production, distribution, consumption and disposal of food through the various stages and sectors of the composite global food system. These data were complemented with data from the FAOSTAT database on GHG emissions from land use related to agriculture (FAO, 2020). EDGAR-FOOD represents the first database consistently covering each stage of the food chain for all countries with yearly frequency for the period 1990-2015. Details regarding the methodology applied are available in Crippa et al. (2021).