So I appear to have a piece in Nature. Here. It’s under “correspndence” when it’s really a letter to the editor. Here’s, for it’s paywalled, what was the agreed final draft:
No shortage of
Jeremy Grantham sounds
an unnecessary alarm about
the “impending shortage” of
phosphorus and potassium
fertilizers (Nature 491, 303;
2012). With phosphorus
constituting 0.1% of the
lithosphere and potassium 2.5%,
supplies are likely to outlast our
species, possibly even the planet
Grantham assumes that
are indicators of resource
availability. However, ‘reserve’ is
an economic and legal concept
that has nothing to do with the
quantity of material available
A reserve represents the amount
of an ore or element that has
been drilled, tested, measured
and defined, and which can
be extracted using current
techniques and at current prices.
It costs a great deal to confirm
all those points for a particular
mineral deposit, so it is done
only for those likely to be used in
the coming decades.
‘Resource’, by contrast, denotes
the amount of the same ore or
element that is out there, with
prior knowledge of roughly
where it is, how much there
is and what it will be used for.
Resources are transformed into
reserves by spending money —
and only when that is necessary.
Every generation exhausts its
reserves of almost all minerals,
because the tendency is to
convert only enough resources
into reserves to last for a
The resources of phosphate
and potassium fertilizers are
sufficient for many thousands
of years of current usage. On
that timescale, total element
availability is probably more
important as a limit.
Tim Worstall Adam Smith
Institute, London; and Messines,
I did offer them a chopped down version of this and what we ended up with was this letter.
So, the question now is, “correspondence” in Nature. Does this equate to “being published in Nature” in the technical sense of that word? Does this now mean that I have two scientific publications to my name? Or is that much too grand for what is, after all, just a letter to the editor?