No article content was provided, so we couldn’t assess sustainability claims, data integrity or tone. That’s fixable. If you want your climate story published, send information we can verify and context our readers can use. The guidance below turns a blank submission into a credible, actionable brief.

Start with the numbers. State the baseline year, organisational boundary and calculation method-ideally aligned with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. If you claim a reduction, share absolute tonnes of CO2e and, where helpful, intensity figures, and make clear which of Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 are included. Without this, readers can’t compare or trust progress.

Targets need provenance. If your organisation follows the Science Based Targets initiative, say so and provide near‑term and long‑term milestones, the pathway used and any material changes since validation. If your targets are self‑set, explain the science behind them and how you’ll course‑correct if performance slips.

Renewable electricity claims must be specific. Tell us whether you’re using long‑term power purchase agreements, on‑site generation or certificates, and include geography and vintage. Share both market‑based and location‑based figures so we can see structural change, not just accounting.

Be straight about offsets. If they cover residual emissions only, say so. Include volume, standard, project type and year of issuance, and what steps you’re taking to reduce before compensating. Avoided‑emissions language and ‘carbon neutral’ badges confuse audiences unless the underlying data and limits are crystal clear.

Verification builds trust. If your greenhouse gas inventory has third‑party assurance-such as limited or reasonable assurance consistent with ISO 14064‑3-include the scope and findings. If it doesn’t, share the calculation workbook, emission factors used and a named contact who can speak to quality controls.

Outcomes matter as much as outputs. Pair climate metrics with lived results: homes made warmer through retrofits, factories cutting energy bills, suppliers supported to measure Scope 3, rivers or habitats restored. Name places, dates and people we can contact. Our readers back solutions they can see and replicate.

Give context, not hype. Compare your performance with sector benchmarks and national figures where possible, and explain the main drivers of change-technology shifts, behaviour, supply chain engagement or policy. If results slipped, say why and what you’ll try next. Honest learning is more useful than slogans.

Package the story clearly. Include a 100–150 word summary, two attributable quotes we can verify, rights‑cleared images with captions, and a machine‑readable data file or public dashboard. Tell us what’s next in the next 6–18 months so readers know how to follow progress.

Send us clear data, sound methods and real‑world outcomes, and we can publish a story that helps policy teams scale what works, communities adapt smart ideas and investors back credible plans. That’s optimistic realism-and it’s what Eco Current exists to cover.