Australia vs Norway: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Australia
8.57 square meters
in 2023
Norway
8.41 square meters
in 2023
Australia rank
41st
Norway rank
42nd
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Australia
- Norway
How they compare
Australia currently reports 8.57 square meters against 8.41 square meters in Norway, a difference of 0.16 square meters.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Norway ahead.
Australia ranks 41st and Norway ranks 42nd of 178 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Australia averaged higher in 1 and Norway in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Norway | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 23.83 square meters | 28.77 square meters | 4.94 square meters | Norway |
| 2010s | 14.44 square meters | 13.75 square meters | 0.6951 square meters | Australia |
| 2020s | 8.94 square meters | 9.36 square meters | 0.4169 square meters | Norway |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Australia or Norway?
- Australia, at 8.57 square meters against 8.41 square meters in Norway as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Australia and Norway?
- 0.16 square meters, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Norway?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Australia and Norway rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Australia ranks 41st and Norway ranks 42nd of 178 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Singh et al. (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Consumption-based deforestation per person. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Estimated average deforestation for agricultural and forestry products, per person. This is adjusted for trade, so it reflects deforestation caused by consumption, not domestic production.