Iraq vs Lithuania: Consumption-based deforestation per person
Iraq
1.29 square meters
in 2023
Lithuania
1.43 square meters
in 2023
Iraq rank
135th
Lithuania rank
132nd
Consumption-based deforestation per person over time
- Iraq
- Lithuania
How they compare
Lithuania currently reports 1.43 square meters against 1.29 square meters in Iraq, a difference of 0.14 square meters.
That makes Lithuania's figure about 1.1 times Iraq's.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Iraq ahead.
Iraq ranks 135th and Lithuania ranks 132nd of 178 countries.
Lithuania has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Iraq | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 2.6 square meters | 2.89 square meters | 0.2902 square meters | Lithuania |
| 2010s | 2.45 square meters | 3.61 square meters | 1.16 square meters | Lithuania |
| 2020s | 1.23 square meters | 2.39 square meters | 1.15 square meters | Lithuania |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher consumption-based deforestation per person, Iraq or Lithuania?
- Lithuania, at 1.43 square meters against 1.29 square meters in Iraq as of 2023.
- What is the difference in consumption-based deforestation per person between Iraq and Lithuania?
- 0.14 square meters, with Lithuania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Iraq and Lithuania?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2023.
- How do Iraq and Lithuania rank globally for consumption-based deforestation per person?
- Iraq ranks 135th and Lithuania ranks 132nd 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.