Three years ago, I moved to Minnesota to sell hazelnuts. I believed strongly in their potential to fight climate change, and I was overcome with excitement – getting tongue-tied talking about what it could mean to swap the endless corn and soy for a crop with seemingly endless environmental benefits.
But I soon noticed that the attributes of hazelnuts that dazzled me enough to quit my job and move across the country were not the same attributes I was looking for when planning menus and filling up my shopping cart.
I would purchase foods based on indicators that sustainable farming practices had been used (organic, regenerative, local, etc.), but overlook the inherent qualities of the specific foods themselves. My hopes in writing this list are (1) that you too will be dazzled by the wonders of Midwest hazelnuts, and (2) that you will seek out the foods in your region that possess these underappreciated qualities. After all, these are the foods that will keep farms resilient and communities fed as the world changes around us.
Without further ado, three questions to help you identify a food as climate-friendly:
- Is it native?
While locally-grown food receives considerable attention for its sustainability, the “localness” of a food has just as much to do with the history of generations passed.
“A great opportunity lies in the consumption of … native flora adapted to the particular place we inhabit. These indigenous foods are knit into the ecology of a place, supporting the vitality of the soil, water, and wild plant and wildlife communities, as well as human needs.”
– Jared Rosenbaum, Botanist and author of Wild Plant Culture
The American hazelnut (Corylus americana) has grown wild in the forests and oak savannas of the Midwest since the melting of the glaciers. They have been tested by centuries of harsh winters, hot summers, heavy storms, dry periods, pests and diseases. They survived, and stand today ready to handle the variability of Midwestern weather conditions.
This resilience becomes even more important as the climate continues to change. In 2023, the Midwest was hit by a record drought. We feared the hazelnuts would suffer, but we ended the year with a record harvest.
Resilience in our food system is not the only environmental benefit of adding native foods to our farms and diets. If you reach into a hazelnut bush during harvest time, you’ll quickly find bird nests, caterpillars, treefrogs, and other native species that built homes on farmed hazelnut bushes just as they would in the wild. When we eat native foods, farms become habitat.
Lastly, native foods need very few human-supplied inputs to thrive. After all, they were meant to grow in a region’s natural conditions. Hazelnut farmers can expect a successful harvest without adding fertilizers or pesticides. Remember the drought I mentioned? Most hazelnut growers didn’t water their hazelnut bushes once.
Native foods like Midwest hazelnuts provide greater climate resilience, create habitat for native flora and fauna, and require fewer inputs to thrive.
Find native foods in your area! Check out the cookbooks, recipes, and restaurants from Indigenous chefs and food sovereignty organizations in your area. Peruse a foraging book and earmark native plants that are grown commercially. Visit your local farmers market and chat with farmers about why they grow what they grow.
- Is it a tree (or bush)?
I scarcely see orchards get the credit they deserve for their environmental benefits. Your average apple tree is sequestering a lot more carbon than your broccoli. Trees play a crucial role in mitigating climate change by sequestering carbon dioxide and storing it long-term, not only in the soil, but also in their woody biomass. Foods that are grown on trees, such as fruits and nuts, contribute to this process.
Hazelnut tidbit: Every few years, hazelnut production will slow and the bushes will be “coppiced.” Coppicing is the practice of cutting the bush down, but leaving the roots intact. The branches grow back quickly in a couple of years, efficiently sucking up carbon in all that new biomass, and reigniting the productivity of the bush.
Not all orchards are created equal. Take an average California almond farm, for example. Almonds are notorious for their massive water consumption, and farms have been known to sink into the ground by several inches due to the immense groundwater extraction. Furthermore, a sustainable orchard ought to have an understory. If the soil below the trees is bare, it is vulnerable to the elements and limited in its carbon storage capacity.
Hazelnut farm in Dayton, MN
- Is it perennial?
This is a big one.
If you already determined that a food came from a tree, you’ve got a yes here as well.
Perennial crops are foods that return each year without needing to be replanted. Why does this make them climate-friendly? Because the soil stays undisturbed for years at a time.
Picture an apple orchard (or hazelnut orchard) at harvest time. The trees and their roots stay intact as people or machines pick off the food. The next year, the tree blooms again.
Now picture a field of corn. Each year, the plows dig up all the roots from last year to plant anew, and all the carbon that was sequestered during that corn’s short life is released back into the atmosphere.
Some perennial crops may surprise you. Kernza is a newly developed perennial grain that is becoming a climate-smart substitute for wheat. Asparagus, rhubarb, and artichokes are all perennial vegetables.
The cookbook Perennial Kitchen by Beth Dooley is a wonderful way to explore perennials in your kitchen.
Thank you so much for reading! If you’re interested in bringing some of these dazzling Midwest hazelnuts into your kitchen, I hope you will check us out at Hazel Heart Farms! Use the code CLIMATE10 at checkout for 10% off all online orders.
Emma Dempsey is the Director of Sales and Marketing at Hazel Heart Farms, a farmer collective building a regenerative hazelnut industry in the Midwest.
Connect with Hazel Heart Farms on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook!
The post Lessons from Hazelnuts appeared first on Climate Generation.
When carbon dioxide (CO2) is released from a factory or power plant, the gas can be captured and permanently stored underground, preventing it from driving climate change.
This is the idea underpinning carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology that is at the heart of many nations’ net-zero plans.
Influential organisations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), describe CCS as “critical” for cutting emissions from key sectors – and for helping to avoid dangerous global warming.
In particular, capturing CO2 is seen as one of the only viable options for decarbonising some of the world’s highest-emitting industries, such as cement production.
The UK, for example, has committed to investing as much as £21.7bn over the coming decades in its nascent CCS industry, as part of the nation’s net-zero strategy.
Yet, in the UK and elsewhere, there has been a backlash against plans for CCS.
Citing high costs, ties to the fossil-fuel industry and a “history of poor performance”, critics describe CCS as a “dangerous distraction” or a “false climate solution”.
Time and again, the outlook for the roll-out of CCS has been scaled back, as the technology has failed to deliver as quickly as expected – and as policy support has wavered.
Furthermore, critics state that the technology remains “unproven” on the scale required to make a meaningful impact on global emissions.
In this Q&A, Carbon Brief explores the role CCS is expected to play in achieving net-zero, its record to date and the reasons it has been criticised, using the UK as an example.
What is CCS?
CCS involves capturing CO2 emissions released from a large source, such as a gas power plant or a cement factory.
The CO2 is separated from the facility’s exhaust stream, generally using a chemical solvent, before being compressed into a liquid and transported via pipeline or vehicle. The CO2 is then stored by injecting it into underground reservoirs, such as depleted oil fields or saline aquifers.
The term “CCUS” is sometimes also used, referring to the “utilisation” of CO2 to make products, including fertilisers, fuels or building materials. Such uses do not necessarily lead to permanent emissions cuts, as the CO2 can end up later being released back into the atmosphere.
(“CCS” is used in this Q&A, unless quoting another organisation that specifically refers to “CCUS”.)
The infographic below shows the stages of capturing CO2 and transporting it to be either stored or used in other applications.
Carbon capture technology was originally rolled out at US and Canadian oil wells in the early 1970s as a way to achieve “enhanced oil recovery”. This involves injecting captured CO2 into depleted wells – a process that stores CO2, but also helps to extract more oil.
This remains, by far, the most significant end use for captured CO2 worldwide, with around three-quarters of it used for this purpose.
Moreover, most of the CO2 currently captured is a by-product of gas purification – the process by which fossil fuels such as methane are separated from other, unwanted substances. Selling this CO2 can make such gas projects more economically viable.
Therefore, as shown in the chart below, which is based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data, the majority of CO2 that is both captured and used today helps the fossil-fuel industry to extract and sell more oil and gas.
CCS was first proposed as a way to deal with CO2 emissions in a 1976 academic article, which imagined injecting the captured gas into the ocean.
It is only since the early 2000s that CCS has gained traction as a proposed climate solution, with a 2005 “special report” by the IPCC exploring the topic. At that time, the authors note there were just three small-scale projects trying to capture and permanently store CO2.
Installing CCS at factories or power plants and permanently storing the CO2 would mean that, in theory, such facilities could continue using fossil fuels without contributing to climate change.
Such applications are often mentioned alongside two related technologies, both of which could be used to “suck” CO2 out of the atmosphere and, thus, deliver “negative emissions”.
One is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Crops absorb CO2 as they grow and BECCS involves a power plant burning these crops, then storing the resulting CO2.
The other technology is direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS).
These technologies are classed as “CO2 removal”, as they involve absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere using plants or machines and then storing it permanently.
By contrast, CCS installed at a factory is considered a way to avoid CO2 emitted by that specific facility from entering the atmosphere. This Q&A focuses on such applications, which account for the vast majority of existing and planned CCS.
How much CCS capacity has been built so far?
As of February 2026, there were a total of 75 operational CCS projects around the world. As noted above, almost all of them are at fossil-fuel extraction and processing sites, according to the IEA’s database.
Together, these projects capture 62.5m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) each year. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of Ecuador.
(This compares with the 22 CCS projects, promising to capture 40MtCO2 annually, that were operational or under construction as of 2014.)
As the chart below shows, the amount of CO2 currently being captured and stored is a tiny fraction of the total emissions from fossil-fuel use.
In a 2020 report, the IEA explained that the “story of CCUS has largely been one of unmet expectations: its potential to mitigate climate change has been recognised for decades, but deployment has been slow”.
A wave of interest in CCS in the 2000s, largely from countries in Europe and North America, focused on enabling coal power plants to continue operating with lower emissions.
This interest largely petered out, as plummeting renewable energy costs weakened the case for coal plants with CCS. Today, there are only seven operating CCS-coal plants worldwide – five in China, one in the US and one in Canada.
Yet the Paris Agreement in 2015 – and the national net-zero targets that followed – highlighted the need for deep emissions cuts in sectors that previously expected to continue emitting for decades. This, once again, has fuelled interest in the use of CCS.
In recent years, there has also been growing interest in producing low-carbon “blue” hydrogen from gas with CCS.
Hydrogen is widely seen as key for decarbonising certain sectors – particularly in industry – but analyses suggest that it may be difficult to make sufficient “green” hydrogen using renewable power on the timescales required.
As the map below shows, most CCS capacity is based in the US and Canada, with other major fossil-fuel producers such as Norway, Brazil and the Gulf states also contributing.
A surge of projects have entered the global CCS pipeline in recent years. According to the IEA, 93.7MtCO2 of capture or storage capacity is under construction as of February 2026 and another 1,279.6MtCO2 is in the “planning” stages.
“Planned” projects include any initiative at early concept, feasibility or engineering study stages and the industry has a long history of projects being cancelled or delayed.
Nevertheless, this pipeline of projects could lead to a large expansion of facilities dedicated to permanent CO2 storage that does not involve extracting more oil.
The planned projects – if they are realised – would also include significant growth in sectors where CCS is virtually non-existent, such as steel, hydrogen and cement production, as shown in the chart below.
What role is CCS expected to play in reaching net-zero?
It will be impossible to stop dangerous climate change unless the world reaches net-zero emissions, according to the IPCC. The amount of global warming – and whether the Paris Agreement temperature target can be met – depends on when net-zero is reached.
Many global pathways that have been set out for achieving net-zero, including a majority of the IPCC-assessed pathways where global warming is limited to 1.5C, rely on the use of CCS at fossil-fuel plants and industrial sites.
“These models have been quite instrumental in bringing CCS back onto the agenda,” Lina Lefstad, an ecological economist at Lund University, tells Carbon Brief.
Influential organisations relying on CCS in their net-zero scenarios range from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) through to the oil company Shell. The IEA has stated that net-zero would be “virtually impossible” without CCS.
These scenarios often include 10s to 100s of times more CCS capacity being built in the coming decades. The IEA includes 1.7GtCO2 being captured by 2035 in its net-zero scenario – nearly 30 times more than is captured today.
(Some of the much higher numbers in scenarios assessed by the IPCC have been dismissed by experts as implausible, especially given the slow rollout of CCS to date.)
When considering CCS for both emissions cuts and removals, Dr Jennifer Roberts, a researcher at the University of Strathclyde and deputy director at the UK Carbon Capture and Storage Research Centre (UKCCSRC), tells Carbon Brief the situation is clear:
“From an IPCC climate modelling perspective…reaching net-zero without CCS is far more expensive, disruptive and potentially out of reach.”
This does not mean that it would be impossible to reach net-zero without using CCS. However, net-zero scenarios that use little or no CCS rely on dramatic changes elsewhere, such as much lower global energy demand.
Net-zero scenarios often include a crucial role for CCS in “hard-to-abate” sectors, referring to activities that lack available, low-cost options to fully decarbonise. In particular, CCS is widely seen as vital for decarbonising parts of heavy indu