If you can get yourself to wear a diamond that is not a shaved piece of the planet’s final offering, but is chemically identical to the original product and refuses funding to military leaders – then Pandora is your store. The largest in the world jeweler (in pure product volume), known for its charming bracelets, announcements that it will only sell laboratory-grown diamonds in the future and market them as ‘affordable, sustainable products’. They don’t use the word “cheap”, but we all know what’s in it for us.
While the “environmental” claims about laboratory-grown diamonds are still volatile, the diamond industry’s justification for its continued existence sounds desperate. The National Diamond Council, an association of diamond mining companies, runs something like a trend blog, with a post informing us that they are offering “diamonds”, a term that only refers to “natural diamonds” “from Earth”. They remind us that they were created on average about one and three billion years ago under tremendous heat and compression 100 miles below the earth’s crust, ejected upward by the eruption of underground volcanoes. You, a sophisticated collector, can have this. Or you, a consumer of garbage, may have some jewelry associated with words like “synthetic” and “factories” and “industrial purposes,” a fake forgery obscured by “telltale marks” visible to the naked eye.
Not to mention the “real” diamonds are inexorably connected of the arms trade and perpetuation of bloodshed. Laboratory-grown diamonds are structural the sameso you can just lie. They are up to ten times cheaper than “real” diamonds, according to annual report from the consulting company Bain & Company. And lab-grown diamonds are an amazing human feat, possible only because of the Big Bang and about a 3.5 billion-year process of evolution of intelligent life on Earth.
One of the members of NDC De Beers has already cave to the lure of laboratory-grown diamond production.
Both laboratory-grown diamond sellers and “real” diamond miners claim that their stones are more “environmentally friendly” and that they have yet to prove it definitively. Research conducted by Trucost, a non-profit organization that analyzes the carbon production of large companies and the impact on the environment, found that diamonds produced account for one third of the carbon consumed compared to laboratory-grown diamonds (160 kg CO2 per carat versus 511 kg , respectively). But this is dotted with a disclaimer. The study was conducted on behalf of the Association of Diamond Manufacturers (DPA), now the Natural Diamond Council. Trucost Rick Lord Analyzer told Vogue that it does not take into account significant costs such as ‘mine closure, diamond cutting and polishing, retail and post-consumption phases of the diamond’. In an interview with Vogue, a professor of energy and the environment at the University of Delaware, Salim Ali said the conclusion “runs counter to common sense.”
Meanwhile, the study relies solely on publicly available data to measure carbon costs for laboratory-grown diamonds, noting that “greenhouse gas detection and the wider environmental impact of laboratory-grown diamonds are poor.” In 2019, the FTC sent warning letters to eight jewelery manufacturers who warn them not to make unsubstantiated claims that laboratory-grown diamonds are “environmentally friendly”, “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable”.
Pandora claims that by next year, their diamonds will be produced entirely using renewable energy.
Anyway, I can only imagine what this would portend culture-torn by war America with very colorful and razor-sharp posts on Twitter.