Cuba vs South Africa: Adjusted savings: energy depletion (current US$), per square kilometre

Cuba
5,427 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2021
South Africa
5,898 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2021
Cuba rank
46th
South Africa rank
43rd

Adjusted savings: energy depletion (current US$), per square kilometre over time

  • Cuba
  • South Africa
05.0k10.0k15.0k197019952021

How they compare

South Africa currently reports 5,898 current US$ per square kilometre against 5,427 current US$ per square kilometre in Cuba, a difference of 471 current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes South Africa's figure about 1.1 times Cuba's.

The two have swapped places 8 times across 51 shared years of data; in 1971 it was South Africa ahead.

Cuba ranks 46th and South Africa ranks 43rd of 206 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Cuba averaged higher in 1 and South Africa in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cuba South Africa Difference Ahead
1970s 110.77 current US$ per square kilometre 448.44 current US$ per square kilometre 337.67 current US$ per square kilometre South Africa
1980s 406.61 current US$ per square kilometre 1,567 current US$ per square kilometre 1,160 current US$ per square kilometre South Africa
1990s 781.9 current US$ per square kilometre 1,643 current US$ per square kilometre 861.37 current US$ per square kilometre South Africa
2000s 3,750 current US$ per square kilometre 5,019 current US$ per square kilometre 1,269 current US$ per square kilometre South Africa
2010s 6,861 current US$ per square kilometre 6,263 current US$ per square kilometre 598.28 current US$ per square kilometre Cuba
2020s 3,768 current US$ per square kilometre 4,452 current US$ per square kilometre 683.19 current US$ per square kilometre South Africa

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher adjusted savings: energy depletion (current us$), per square kilometre, Cuba or South Africa?
South Africa, at 5,898 current US$ per square kilometre against 5,427 current US$ per square kilometre in Cuba as of 2021.
What is the difference in adjusted savings: energy depletion (current us$), per square kilometre between Cuba and South Africa?
471 current US$ per square kilometre, with South Africa ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cuba and South Africa?
51 years are reported by both, from 1971 to 2021.
How do Cuba and South Africa rank globally for adjusted savings: energy depletion (current us$), per square kilometre?
Cuba ranks 46th and South Africa ranks 43rd of 206 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Adjusted savings: energy depletion (current US$), 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

Cuba vs South Africa: Adjusted savings: energy depletion (current US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 28 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/adjusted-savings-energy-depletion-current-us-per-square-kilometre/cuba/south-africa/

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://economy.statizoid.com/compare/adjusted-savings-energy-depletion-current-us-per-square-kilometre/cuba/south-africa/">Cuba vs South Africa: Adjusted savings: energy depletion (current US$), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Adjusted savings: energy depletion (current US$), per square kilometre
Unit
current US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
206 places, 9,119 data points, 1970–2021
Last refreshed

Adjusted savings: energy depletion (current US$) 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.