This article is a travesty of diamond mining industry talking points and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The central premise is essentially that companies manufacturing diamonds use...
Exemplary
This article is a travesty of diamond mining industry talking points and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The central premise is essentially that companies manufacturing diamonds use electricity, and some of that electricity may come from coal and other heavy-emissions generation sources. For these claims, it relies extensively on Paul Zimnisky, a 'diamonds analytics' consultant who has to disclose numerous investments, and a board seat, in diamond mining companies on his website¹, and Edahn Golan, an analyst who once interviewed the De Beers CEO about how diamond mining benefits local communities (but does, it appears, admit that lab-grown diamonds are the future of the industry). It notably does not appear to seek any information from environmental, climate change, or energy generation sources about energy generation or the environmental impact of a small-production, electricity-using industrial process.
The response of one diamond manufacturing company, claiming out that their power usage is much lower than mining, is not only left completely uninvestigated, but is responded to with unrelated attacks from the mining investor noted above. Realistically, I have to assume that even if the 10-to-1 claim of the manufacturing company is an overestimate, mining operations almost certainly do involve significantly more emissions than manufacturing. But the claim isn't even considered by the author.
Much of the rest of the article the goes into the usual mined-diamond talking points claiming that mined diamonds have a beautiful story, manufactured diamonds will rapidly become worthless, and mined diamonds are good investments. It quickly goes from presenting these as a 'marketing battle' and 'analysts warn' to presenting them as facts, like lab-grown diamonds being 'something that drops most of its value in just a few years', and 'natural diamonds' having 'value over the long term'. I'd note that hammer prices from the jewellery auctions of many auction houses are readily available online; keep in mind the seller may only be getting 50 to 70% of that price. But that's not particularly the point here: these arguments themselves make no sense to include in an article ostensibly about climate and emissions.
That the article so extensively relies on a diamond mine investor and board member for much of its content, without disclosing the same information he feels it's necessary for him to disclose in his own writing, seems like a significant failure of journalistic integrity. Quite apart from the AP's vague disclosure about receiving funding from some private foundations, with its link to their generic 'support us' page, the failure to disclose very relevant information about its interviewees seems like a much larger problem. As a scientist, doing this sort of thing in a journal article without conflict of interest disclosures, were it found out, would potentially involve journal retractions and disciplinary proceedings. I'm astonished it's considered appropriate by the AP or O'Malley. The article seems akin to articles, in another era, quoting 'doctors' about how smoking is good for your health, not mentioning the doctors were working for or being paid by tobacco companies.
I'd suggest at least tagging this as problematic; it's certainly enough to make me not trust any articles by Isabella O'Malley, and significantly damages my faith in the AP. But the article is actually interesting as a specimen of how climate change can be weaponized to promote unrelated special interests.
¹ As of January 2024, Paul Zimnisky held a long equity position in Lucara Diamond Corp, Brilliant Earth Group, Star Diamond Corp and Newmont Corp. Paul is an independent board member of Lipari Diamond Mines, a privately-held Canadian company with an operating diamond mine in Brazil and a development-stage asset in Angola.
I definitely caught that vibe reading through it, even without digging deeper into names. They started droning on about how the verisimilitude of lab grown diamonds is a direct analogue for the...
I definitely caught that vibe reading through it, even without digging deeper into names. They started droning on about how the verisimilitude of lab grown diamonds is a direct analogue for the foundation of a relationship and my first thought was "oh, it's just diamond mining companies huffing copium". You put it much more eloquently though haha
I come across too many of these articles that are completely missing the point. We aren't buying them for 100% sustainability reasons. Does this feel like an article fueled by the diamond market?
I come across too many of these articles that are completely missing the point. We aren't buying them for 100% sustainability reasons. Does this feel like an article fueled by the diamond market?
Yeah, someone really wants us to buy natural diamonds.
When you buy a natural diamond, there’s a story that it is three billion years in the making by Mother Earth. This wondrous creation of nature … you cannot tell that story with a lab-grown,”
Paying thousands of dollars for something that drops most of its value in just a few years can leave the buyer feeling cheated,
Yeah, someone really wants us to buy natural diamonds.
Then we should be buying zircon and granite instead. They're still harping on "diamonds are forever" huh. Gimme a break. That's exactly what every person who's tried to resell diamonds have found:...
Then we should be buying zircon and granite instead.
The oldest minerals found so far are zircons from Jack Hills in the Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia, with an age of 4.404 billion years. This age is interpreted to be the age of crystallization. These zircons might not only be the oldest minerals on earth, they also show another interesting feature. Their oxygen isotopic composition has been interpreted to indicate that more than 4.4 billion years ago there was already water on the surface of the Earth. (Nau.edu)
Granitic gneisses in the vicinities of Morton and Montevideo in the Minnesota River Valley are dated at 3550 m.y. ago and are the oldest rocks so far found in North America. (USGS.gov)
They're still harping on "diamonds are forever" huh. Gimme a break.
Paying thousands of dollars for something that drops most of its value in just a few years can leave the buyer feeling cheated,
That's exactly what every person who's tried to resell diamonds have found: they have virtually no resale value.
“If we really want to get technical here, the greenest diamond is a repurposed or recycled diamond because that uses no energy,” Zimnisky said.
Be careful what you wish for: the millenials might have bought lab diamonds (or my personal favorite, moissanites) and just didn't correct nosy people who assume they're blood/mine diamonds. Gen Z or Alpha might just grab thrift shiny rocks and let people think what they want.
Edit: quarry --> mine : not all diamond mines are quarries.
Rather than a $3000 diamond ring, I imagine my ideal mate would rather have an engagement ring with a gemstone of actual character and boldness, with the monetary difference in shares of BRK.B....
Rather than a $3000 diamond ring, I imagine my ideal mate would rather have an engagement ring with a gemstone of actual character and boldness, with the monetary difference in shares of BRK.B.
Rings that aren't made entirely of precious metals and minerals are a heck of a lot more striking. Just hop on etsy and you can find hundreds of beautiful eye-popping rings that are made unique by...
Rings that aren't made entirely of precious metals and minerals are a heck of a lot more striking. Just hop on etsy and you can find hundreds of beautiful eye-popping rings that are made unique by artists and still cost significantly less.
There is a reason precious metals tend to be used for engagement/wedding rings though. Those rings are generally worn a lot and daily wear rings really do benefit from being made from materials...
There is a reason precious metals tend to be used for engagement/wedding rings though. Those rings are generally worn a lot and daily wear rings really do benefit from being made from materials that don't tarnish, or at least tarnish slowly. It's certainly cool to have a ring made from Corinthian bronze or shibuichi and I sell plenty of those sort of things - but having to polish the bloody thing once a week or more is a pain. For a ring that's mostly kept in a box and brought out for special occasions it's much less of an issue.
I made my now-wife an engagement ring from 6500 year old bog oak, inlaid with silver, emerald and garnet - but that's not the ring she wears every day, that's something much simpler I made from silver and gold which is much harder wearing and matches her electrum wedding ring much better.
I usually avoid using diamonds (or really any shiny rocks) unless the customer really wants to pay to make it worth my time. They don't really interest me, the markup is insane and frankly diamonds are far more useful to make tools from than wasting on wearing.
Precious metals have their drawbacks, too, however. They can be fragile and wear out. My grandmother's gold wedding ring thinned and even broke several times over the course of her lifetime....
Precious metals have their drawbacks, too, however. They can be fragile and wear out.
My grandmother's gold wedding ring thinned and even broke several times over the course of her lifetime. Getting it repaired wasn't cheap because, well, it's gold.
I am set to inherit her ring, which — surprise, surprise — wore out again in the last few years of her life, and it's thread-thin in one spot. One of these days, I will get it repaired one last time for sentimental reasons, but then it's going in a ring box and not getting worn anymore. It's pretty, and I love it because I loved my grandma — but, gosh, what a silly object.
That's rings though. They get a surprising amount of wear just being on someone's hand all day long, especially if that person is quite active. Your grandmother's ring sounds like it was probably...
That's rings though. They get a surprising amount of wear just being on someone's hand all day long, especially if that person is quite active.
Your grandmother's ring sounds like it was probably high karat gold, which is relatively soft, but even steel would see degradation over a lifetime. It's something I quite like about jewellery, it bears the marks of its owner's life. Take 100 machine-identical rings and have them live with 100 people and you'll have 100 unique artifacts in no time.
I have done quite a lot of jobs where I've taken old, heirloom pieces that are pretty worn out and either rebuilt them as part of something else or melted them down into something new - so they can be worn rather than sitting in a box. It's not uncommon for couples to have wedding rings made which contain metal from heirlooms on both sides of the family, which I think is quite sweet.
Jewellery is one of the things I do for money, yup. I tend to call myself a jewellery designer rather than a jeweller though, strictly speaking a jeweller uses jewels and I mostly don't. Most of...
Jewellery is one of the things I do for money, yup. I tend to call myself a jewellery designer rather than a jeweller though, strictly speaking a jeweller uses jewels and I mostly don't. Most of my work is custom cast rings of various sorts, generally wedding.
You should have a go! A full bench setup is a lot of money but you'd be amazed what you can get done with a small amount of space and a handful of tools. Gold is expensive but silver is cheap and copper is even cheaper. Diamonds are lots of money but cubic zirconias can be had for pennies and the skill to set them is the same.
Indeed :| Friend's story: I don't know what I was more upset by, when my fiance suggested we give in and buy diamonds -- the waste of money or the fact that he's giving in to the cartel marketing....
Indeed :|
Friend's story: I don't know what I was more upset by, when my fiance suggested we give in and buy diamonds -- the waste of money or the fact that he's giving in to the cartel marketing.
In the end they bought moissanites for a couple hundred bucks and it was a gorgeous ring with rainbow double refraction that diamonds don't have.
Diamonds are cool as geological minerals too, but definitely not at that price, humanely, financially and environmentally.
I'm reminded of a recent Folding Ideas youtube video about the weird language found in pro-gold-industry propaganda. It's not just jewellery... it's a story. An investment. A gift of eternity. Retch.
I'm reminded of a recent Folding Ideas youtube video about the weird language found in pro-gold-industry propaganda.
It's not just jewellery... it's a story. An investment. A gift of eternity.
While rather ridiculously phrased and overdramatized, that language, for gold, is at least based on exaggerations of reasonably honest claims. Gold is not a completely unreasonable investment...
While rather ridiculously phrased and overdramatized, that language, for gold, is at least based on exaggerations of reasonably honest claims. Gold is not a completely unreasonable investment commodity. Gold jewellery, outside its value as jewellery, will almost never be worth less than the scrap value of the gold, and that value is well defined. Gold has true scarcity, and has been a store of value for thousands of years. There's no reason to think any of that will change, and as any vast change to scarcity would involve society-changing technological advances (mining in space would be the less outlandish possibility), a vast loss of value would need to involve a complete change in society's valuation of gold. Yes, it might be overpriced, and yes, it might lose value, but almost certainly not all its value.
The language around diamonds is trying to make the same arguments around a simple crystalline phase of a common element. It's trying to argue that you can tell the difference between it being formed by geological processes vs lab processes, that that difference matters, and that you'll continue to be able to tell the difference in the future as existing technology advances. It is based on an entire system of trying to distinguish between essentially identical crystals, and a battle to preserve scarcity that is being lost now. It is entirely plausible that mined diamonds could lose essentially all of their value, for technological reasons, on the scale of decades or even faster.
If you buy something that has €1,000 of gold in it, it would not be implausible to think that adjusted for inflation, it might only be worth €250 in twenty years. It would be implausible to think there was a chance of it only being worth €10. It is not entirely implausible to think that a €25,000 diamond might be worth €250 in twenty years.
Oh yeah I think Dan Olsen acknowledges in that video how interesting the actual facts of gold (in its various roles) are and how cool a real documentary on them could be. But the fluff language...
Oh yeah I think Dan Olsen acknowledges in that video how interesting the actual facts of gold (in its various roles) are and how cool a real documentary on them could be. But the fluff language used in the Idris Elba documentary that's trying to sell the vibe of gold is not that, and its the same tactic the diamond people have been using.
I think most of us here agree with the basic value of an elemental ore, one that does have rich history and interesting chemical properties and awesome technological applications. What OP was...
I think most of us here agree with the basic value of an elemental ore, one that does have rich history and interesting chemical properties and awesome technological applications.
What OP was referring to was this particular video dissecting why the gold council propaganda was as hilariously ineffective as the message was insincere and bad. https://youtu.be/ihvG3RgbYzE?si=50rYtoMlFG1dDfey
Climate change will likely make some known deposits of gold suddenly worthwhile to extract even without any change in mining technology. Once upon a time, there was a lot of gold mining in the...
Climate change will likely make some known deposits of gold suddenly worthwhile to extract even without any change in mining technology.
Once upon a time, there was a lot of gold mining in the region where I live. There are a dozen or so abandoned gold mines visible just from my street — abandoned not because the gold was running low (on the contrary), but because the mines flooded and it was too expensive to pump them out. Our water table gets higher during rainy years and lower during dry years.
However, if this region gets drier over the next 100 years, gold mining will probably become very cost effective. I imagine there are other gold-rich regions in the world in a similar situation due to climate change and/or due to agricultural depletion of aquifers.
Yeah, we bought a lab diamond for two primary reasons: not a blood diamond cost I don't think we were under the illusion that creating diamonds in a lab was some completely green process - if that...
Yeah, we bought a lab diamond for two primary reasons:
not a blood diamond
cost
I don't think we were under the illusion that creating diamonds in a lab was some completely green process - if that existed, we may have preferred it though.
These are the only reasons that I've heard from others who have bought lab diamonds. I didn't even consider the environmental aspects of either lab or natural diamonds until this article. So yeah,...
These are the only reasons that I've heard from others who have bought lab diamonds. I didn't even consider the environmental aspects of either lab or natural diamonds until this article. So yeah, this reeks of De Beers propaganda, much like the whole "3-4 months salary" bullshit.
Guess what Gen Z - everything you buy uses electricity to process and manufacture! Why haven't you fixed that yet? 😠 (/s) I see we've finally moved on to blaming Gen Z for everyone's problems.
Guess what Gen Z - everything you buy uses electricity to process and manufacture! Why haven't you fixed that yet? 😠 (/s)
I see we've finally moved on to blaming Gen Z for everyone's problems.
You can tell this is a garbage shill piece because they made zero efforts to even google carbon emissions between coal and open pit diamond mining. Carbon can be absorbed by algae and trees, which...
You can tell this is a garbage shill piece because they made zero efforts to even google carbon emissions between coal and open pit diamond mining.
Carbon can be absorbed by algae and trees, which are much easier to clean up.
They didn't mention what else is forever: the environmental destruction from diamond mines, plus tailings which frequently breach creating secondary disasters.
:) thanks for posting this for my two minutes hate of the day.
It's the "gen z and millenials" in the title. It's a huge fuck you towards two entire generations and the only reason boomers are excluded is because they couldn't give a flying fuck about how...
It's the "gen z and millenials" in the title. It's a huge fuck you towards two entire generations and the only reason boomers are excluded is because they couldn't give a flying fuck about how bloody their diamonds are. I want to see a calculation of the entire energy needed to make diamond the size of a rice corn which is probably a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. It's probably laughable. Meanwhile voting for a party that actively sabotages green energy is probably doing millions of times that damage to the environment.
Halfway into the article they go into the price of diamonds and whether it "drops in value". The whole article seems to be a plant by the diamond mining industry.
What, because mining operations don't have large oil-fuelled machines or something? This is just the climate-emissions version of the "yet you participate in society" meme.
What, because mining operations don't have large oil-fuelled machines or something?
This is just the climate-emissions version of the "yet you participate in society" meme.
Obviously if something isn't completely perfect it's not worth doing at all right? I think diamonds in general are kinda silly, but lab grown diamonds are 1000x better than child slave diamonds
Obviously if something isn't completely perfect it's not worth doing at all right? I think diamonds in general are kinda silly, but lab grown diamonds are 1000x better than child slave diamonds
The article conspicuously fails to ever mention these mysterious "ethical reasons" again... Apparently the three billion year geological history of natural diamonds is relevant to their...
Social media posts show millennials and Generation Zs proudly explaining the purchase of their lab-grown diamonds for sustainability and ethical reasons.
The article conspicuously fails to ever mention these mysterious "ethical reasons" again... Apparently the three billion year geological history of natural diamonds is relevant to their marketability, but their centuries-long role in conflict and warfare isn't.
I think except for the last section ("Marketing Competition") the article makes a good point. It's basically that many companies market themselves as green alternatives, but in reality they are...
I think except for the last section ("Marketing Competition") the article makes a good point. It's basically that many companies market themselves as green alternatives, but in reality they are dubious or downright not green at all.
But then the article pushes a pro-natural diamond narrative, which is very obviously wrong. I don't think the argument before that is a reason to buy natural diamonds instead, but is actually in support of much more grounded political points.
Even the supposedly clean diamonds have an environmental cost. But that's exactly the point. The current system mostly can't produce anything without an unsustainable environmental cost. It needs to be changed.
This transformation needs to happen in every country. Thanks to the "free markets", if there is a more damaging but (in the short term) cheaper way to produce stuff in a country, the firms will be incentivized to use their labor. Because capitalism incentivizes maximum profits in minimum time. Therefore, tackling climate change necessitates an internationally coordinated approach, with binding agreements.
Edit: Apparently the so-called expert, Paul Zimnisky, is an independent director of Lipari Diamond Mines. This is a very serious conflict of interest, and it casts a great shadow of doubt on the entire article. Thanks to /u/pallas for pointing it out. You can read their reply to me for further information.
I'd actually disagree here. The article does not make a good point, and is not appropriate. Under reasonable journalistic standards I think there may be an argument that it should be retracted...
Exemplary
I'd actually disagree here. The article does not make a good point, and is not appropriate. Under reasonable journalistic standards I think there may be an argument that it should be retracted over its failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and the author censured. Yes, greenwashing exists more generally, but this article is not making any effective claims about greenwashing. The article is largely built around 'malinformation', presenting potentially technically valid information (that diamond manufacturing uses electricity, and some electricity is generated with coal) in a misleading context, in a manner designed to make the reader believe something that is wrong (that lab-grown diamonds are not more environmentally sustainable than mined diamonds).
The article does not provide any evidence that the electricity usage of diamond manufacturing is significant or unsustainable in a way that is different from any other industry. It does not provide any numbers about electricity usage whatsoever, and does not make any claims outside of electricity usage. It appears to dismiss without comment the claim of one manufacturer that the power used is a small fraction of that used in mining. The claims being made appear to be very similar to the petroleum industry claims that electric vehicles are environmentally unfriendly, compared to ICEs, because the electricity might be generated from unsustainable sources. Those claims are widely derided, and I think the claims here should be as well.
Worse, instead of providing any evidence or comparisons, the article simply quotes, without any disclosure, a board member of Lipari Diamond Mines, and investor in several other mining companies, who claims that the diamond manufacturing companies aren't environmentally friendly. It also appears to largely rely on him for many of its claims regarding energy usage and environmental impact. At no point does it disclose that he is a diamond mining company board member.
Even if the one-tenth the power usage claims of one company are exaggerated, it is almost certain that manufacturing is far more environmentally friendly, lower power, and more sustainable, than mining, even if some electricity comes from coal right now. It is reasonable for companies to claim that they are environmentally friendly compared to mining. It does not seem 'dubious' or 'not green at all' to make such claims. I would also argue more generally that processes that significantly reduce emissions compared to other processes are beneficial, especially when, as in this case, they move emissions from the process to electricity generation, a single target that can be focused on.
I apologize if I'm rather incensed in this reply. I'm just astonished by the AP allowing this level of undisclosed conflict of interest in such an egregiously biased article.
I've taken no offense, I'm glad you elaborated on your criticism. The point about electricity source is valid. However, I want to mention that this paragraph still sounds solid, if true. This is a...
I've taken no offense, I'm glad you elaborated on your criticism. The point about electricity source is valid. However, I want to mention that this paragraph still sounds solid, if true.
China is the other major diamond manufacturing country. Henan Huanghe Whirlwind, Zhuhai Zhong Na Diamond, HeNan LiLiang Diamond, Starsgem Co. and Ningbo Crysdiam are among the largest producers. None returned requests for comment nor post details about where it gets its electricity. More than half of China’s electricity came from coal in 2023.
This is a lack of transparency, hence my comment about dubiousness.
I admit that I bought into the spiel of the "expert" (Zimnisky). So I very much do appreciate being corrected on that. Yes, it's an immense breach of journalistic integrity.
You'll notice most free trade agreements do not include any provisions to punish human rights violations, incentivize improving quality of life, or loosen immigration restrictions between the two...
You'll notice most free trade agreements do not include any provisions to punish human rights violations, incentivize improving quality of life, or loosen immigration restrictions between the two countries.
This is a feature, not a bug. There would be little point in an American company setting up a manufacturing facility in Bangladesh if there were expectations that those workers (and their communities) gain access to all the comforts and privilege of the rest of the West.
All those companies that previously outsourced call center work to India are exploring other options now that wages there are rising. This has been the one constant of global trade: find the cheapest labor, relocate jobs when labor costs rise above cost to stand up new facility somewhere cheaper.
I googled "free trade agreements human rights" and this was the first thing that came up: However, it's worth noting that the author is generally skeptical of the idea that free trade agreements...
You'll notice most free trade agreements do not include any provisions to punish human rights violations, incentivize improving quality of life, or loosen immigration restrictions between the two countries... This is a feature, not a bug.
I googled "free trade agreements human rights" and this was the first thing that came up:
Numerous Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) contain provisions imposing human rights-related obligations, particularly in the case of agreements between the European Union and a developing country (often a former colony).
However, it's worth noting that the author is generally skeptical of the idea that free trade agreements measurably improve human rights. Mostly because she thinks they're toothless, writing
Such [human rights] obligations often consist of hortatory “best endeavors” language rather than legally binding provisions..... The countries that are considered to have the highest levels of corruption and human rights abuses are not, by and large, participating in FTAs or other reciprocal trade agreements, at least in part because they are not members of the WTO. While the WTO is not a panacea for developing countries, it may provide the better space – as compared to FTAs – for achieving objectives in furtherance of human rights objectives.
Regarding immigration, it is actually quite common to include immigration provisions in free trade agreements. I googled "free trade agreements immigration restrictions" and this was the first result:
Although the United States has not created a common market for the movement of labor with our trading partners, there are immigration provisions in existing free trade agreements (FTAs) that spell out reciprocal terms regulating the “temporary entry of business persons.” ... Immigration issues often raised in the context of the FTAs include whether FTAs should contain provisions that expressly expand immigration between the countries as well as whether FTAs should require that the immigrant-sending countries restrain unwanted migration (typically expressed as illegal aliens).
This is kinda what I was referring to. Even if provisions are there (see the labor provisions in the US-Mexico-CA), they are generally phrased in a way that doesn't invalidate the agreement or...
Such [human rights] obligations often consist of hortatory “best endeavors” language rather than legally binding provisions.
I mean....we just don't really wear jewels at all. Not even really wedding bands. I'm sure this makes several owners of mines in underdeveloped countries very displeased. Some of it is just...
I mean....we just don't really wear jewels at all. Not even really wedding bands. I'm sure this makes several slaveowners owners of mines in underdeveloped countries very displeased.
Some of it is just costs....we pawned off some family heirloom jewels for like $500 to pay rent circa 2009.
This article is a travesty of diamond mining industry talking points and undisclosed conflicts of interest. The central premise is essentially that companies manufacturing diamonds use electricity, and some of that electricity may come from coal and other heavy-emissions generation sources. For these claims, it relies extensively on Paul Zimnisky, a 'diamonds analytics' consultant who has to disclose numerous investments, and a board seat, in diamond mining companies on his website¹, and Edahn Golan, an analyst who once interviewed the De Beers CEO about how diamond mining benefits local communities (but does, it appears, admit that lab-grown diamonds are the future of the industry). It notably does not appear to seek any information from environmental, climate change, or energy generation sources about energy generation or the environmental impact of a small-production, electricity-using industrial process.
The response of one diamond manufacturing company, claiming out that their power usage is much lower than mining, is not only left completely uninvestigated, but is responded to with unrelated attacks from the mining investor noted above. Realistically, I have to assume that even if the 10-to-1 claim of the manufacturing company is an overestimate, mining operations almost certainly do involve significantly more emissions than manufacturing. But the claim isn't even considered by the author.
Much of the rest of the article the goes into the usual mined-diamond talking points claiming that mined diamonds have a beautiful story, manufactured diamonds will rapidly become worthless, and mined diamonds are good investments. It quickly goes from presenting these as a 'marketing battle' and 'analysts warn' to presenting them as facts, like lab-grown diamonds being 'something that drops most of its value in just a few years', and 'natural diamonds' having 'value over the long term'. I'd note that hammer prices from the jewellery auctions of many auction houses are readily available online; keep in mind the seller may only be getting 50 to 70% of that price. But that's not particularly the point here: these arguments themselves make no sense to include in an article ostensibly about climate and emissions.
That the article so extensively relies on a diamond mine investor and board member for much of its content, without disclosing the same information he feels it's necessary for him to disclose in his own writing, seems like a significant failure of journalistic integrity. Quite apart from the AP's vague disclosure about receiving funding from some private foundations, with its link to their generic 'support us' page, the failure to disclose very relevant information about its interviewees seems like a much larger problem. As a scientist, doing this sort of thing in a journal article without conflict of interest disclosures, were it found out, would potentially involve journal retractions and disciplinary proceedings. I'm astonished it's considered appropriate by the AP or O'Malley. The article seems akin to articles, in another era, quoting 'doctors' about how smoking is good for your health, not mentioning the doctors were working for or being paid by tobacco companies.
I'd suggest at least tagging this as problematic; it's certainly enough to make me not trust any articles by Isabella O'Malley, and significantly damages my faith in the AP. But the article is actually interesting as a specimen of how climate change can be weaponized to promote unrelated special interests.
¹ As of January 2024, Paul Zimnisky held a long equity position in Lucara Diamond Corp, Brilliant Earth Group, Star Diamond Corp and Newmont Corp. Paul is an independent board member of Lipari Diamond Mines, a privately-held Canadian company with an operating diamond mine in Brazil and a development-stage asset in Angola.
I definitely caught that vibe reading through it, even without digging deeper into names. They started droning on about how the verisimilitude of lab grown diamonds is a direct analogue for the foundation of a relationship and my first thought was "oh, it's just diamond mining companies huffing copium". You put it much more eloquently though haha
I come across too many of these articles that are completely missing the point. We aren't buying them for 100% sustainability reasons. Does this feel like an article fueled by the diamond market?
Yeah, someone really wants us to buy natural diamonds.
Then we should be buying zircon and granite instead.
They're still harping on "diamonds are forever" huh. Gimme a break.
That's exactly what every person who's tried to resell diamonds have found: they have virtually no resale value.
Be careful what you wish for: the millenials might have bought lab diamonds (or my personal favorite, moissanites) and just didn't correct nosy people who assume they're blood/mine diamonds. Gen Z or Alpha might just grab thrift shiny rocks and let people think what they want.
Edit: quarry --> mine : not all diamond mines are quarries.
Rather than a $3000 diamond ring, I imagine my ideal mate would rather have an engagement ring with a gemstone of actual character and boldness, with the monetary difference in shares of BRK.B.
Diamonds are boring and over-hyped.
Rings that aren't made entirely of precious metals and minerals are a heck of a lot more striking. Just hop on etsy and you can find hundreds of beautiful eye-popping rings that are made unique by artists and still cost significantly less.
There is a reason precious metals tend to be used for engagement/wedding rings though. Those rings are generally worn a lot and daily wear rings really do benefit from being made from materials that don't tarnish, or at least tarnish slowly. It's certainly cool to have a ring made from Corinthian bronze or shibuichi and I sell plenty of those sort of things - but having to polish the bloody thing once a week or more is a pain. For a ring that's mostly kept in a box and brought out for special occasions it's much less of an issue.
I made my now-wife an engagement ring from 6500 year old bog oak, inlaid with silver, emerald and garnet - but that's not the ring she wears every day, that's something much simpler I made from silver and gold which is much harder wearing and matches her electrum wedding ring much better.
I usually avoid using diamonds (or really any shiny rocks) unless the customer really wants to pay to make it worth my time. They don't really interest me, the markup is insane and frankly diamonds are far more useful to make tools from than wasting on wearing.
Precious metals have their drawbacks, too, however. They can be fragile and wear out.
My grandmother's gold wedding ring thinned and even broke several times over the course of her lifetime. Getting it repaired wasn't cheap because, well, it's gold.
I am set to inherit her ring, which — surprise, surprise — wore out again in the last few years of her life, and it's thread-thin in one spot. One of these days, I will get it repaired one last time for sentimental reasons, but then it's going in a ring box and not getting worn anymore. It's pretty, and I love it because I loved my grandma — but, gosh, what a silly object.
That's rings though. They get a surprising amount of wear just being on someone's hand all day long, especially if that person is quite active.
Your grandmother's ring sounds like it was probably high karat gold, which is relatively soft, but even steel would see degradation over a lifetime. It's something I quite like about jewellery, it bears the marks of its owner's life. Take 100 machine-identical rings and have them live with 100 people and you'll have 100 unique artifacts in no time.
I have done quite a lot of jobs where I've taken old, heirloom pieces that are pretty worn out and either rebuilt them as part of something else or melted them down into something new - so they can be worn rather than sitting in a box. It's not uncommon for couples to have wedding rings made which contain metal from heirlooms on both sides of the family, which I think is quite sweet.
Jewellery is one of the things I do for money, yup. I tend to call myself a jewellery designer rather than a jeweller though, strictly speaking a jeweller uses jewels and I mostly don't. Most of my work is custom cast rings of various sorts, generally wedding.
You should have a go! A full bench setup is a lot of money but you'd be amazed what you can get done with a small amount of space and a handful of tools. Gold is expensive but silver is cheap and copper is even cheaper. Diamonds are lots of money but cubic zirconias can be had for pennies and the skill to set them is the same.
Indeed :|
Friend's story: I don't know what I was more upset by, when my fiance suggested we give in and buy diamonds -- the waste of money or the fact that he's giving in to the cartel marketing.
In the end they bought moissanites for a couple hundred bucks and it was a gorgeous ring with rainbow double refraction that diamonds don't have.
Diamonds are cool as geological minerals too, but definitely not at that price, humanely, financially and environmentally.
I'm reminded of a recent Folding Ideas youtube video about the weird language found in pro-gold-industry propaganda.
It's not just jewellery... it's a story. An investment. A gift of eternity.
Retch.
While rather ridiculously phrased and overdramatized, that language, for gold, is at least based on exaggerations of reasonably honest claims. Gold is not a completely unreasonable investment commodity. Gold jewellery, outside its value as jewellery, will almost never be worth less than the scrap value of the gold, and that value is well defined. Gold has true scarcity, and has been a store of value for thousands of years. There's no reason to think any of that will change, and as any vast change to scarcity would involve society-changing technological advances (mining in space would be the less outlandish possibility), a vast loss of value would need to involve a complete change in society's valuation of gold. Yes, it might be overpriced, and yes, it might lose value, but almost certainly not all its value.
The language around diamonds is trying to make the same arguments around a simple crystalline phase of a common element. It's trying to argue that you can tell the difference between it being formed by geological processes vs lab processes, that that difference matters, and that you'll continue to be able to tell the difference in the future as existing technology advances. It is based on an entire system of trying to distinguish between essentially identical crystals, and a battle to preserve scarcity that is being lost now. It is entirely plausible that mined diamonds could lose essentially all of their value, for technological reasons, on the scale of decades or even faster.
If you buy something that has €1,000 of gold in it, it would not be implausible to think that adjusted for inflation, it might only be worth €250 in twenty years. It would be implausible to think there was a chance of it only being worth €10. It is not entirely implausible to think that a €25,000 diamond might be worth €250 in twenty years.
Oh yeah I think Dan Olsen acknowledges in that video how interesting the actual facts of gold (in its various roles) are and how cool a real documentary on them could be. But the fluff language used in the Idris Elba documentary that's trying to sell the vibe of gold is not that, and its the same tactic the diamond people have been using.
I think most of us here agree with the basic value of an elemental ore, one that does have rich history and interesting chemical properties and awesome technological applications.
What OP was referring to was this particular video dissecting why the gold council propaganda was as hilariously ineffective as the message was insincere and bad. https://youtu.be/ihvG3RgbYzE?si=50rYtoMlFG1dDfey
:) it's quite sad-funny
Climate change will likely make some known deposits of gold suddenly worthwhile to extract even without any change in mining technology.
Once upon a time, there was a lot of gold mining in the region where I live. There are a dozen or so abandoned gold mines visible just from my street — abandoned not because the gold was running low (on the contrary), but because the mines flooded and it was too expensive to pump them out. Our water table gets higher during rainy years and lower during dry years.
However, if this region gets drier over the next 100 years, gold mining will probably become very cost effective. I imagine there are other gold-rich regions in the world in a similar situation due to climate change and/or due to agricultural depletion of aquifers.
Yeah, we bought a lab diamond for two primary reasons:
I don't think we were under the illusion that creating diamonds in a lab was some completely green process - if that existed, we may have preferred it though.
These are the only reasons that I've heard from others who have bought lab diamonds. I didn't even consider the environmental aspects of either lab or natural diamonds until this article. So yeah, this reeks of De Beers propaganda, much like the whole "3-4 months salary" bullshit.
Guess what Gen Z - everything you buy uses electricity to process and manufacture! Why haven't you fixed that yet? 😠 (/s)
I see we've finally moved on to blaming Gen Z for everyone's problems.
I'm not Gen Z, but I hear you - millennials killed the economy with our avocado toast, you know.
You can tell this is a garbage shill piece because they made zero efforts to even google carbon emissions between coal and open pit diamond mining.
Carbon can be absorbed by algae and trees, which are much easier to clean up.
They didn't mention what else is forever: the environmental destruction from diamond mines, plus tailings which frequently breach creating secondary disasters.
:) thanks for posting this for my two minutes hate of the day.
Happy to help!! Haha
It's the "gen z and millenials" in the title. It's a huge fuck you towards two entire generations and the only reason boomers are excluded is because they couldn't give a flying fuck about how bloody their diamonds are. I want to see a calculation of the entire energy needed to make diamond the size of a rice corn which is probably a once-in-a-lifetime purchase. It's probably laughable. Meanwhile voting for a party that actively sabotages green energy is probably doing millions of times that damage to the environment.
Halfway into the article they go into the price of diamonds and whether it "drops in value". The whole article seems to be a plant by the diamond mining industry.
What, because mining operations don't have large oil-fuelled machines or something?
This is just the climate-emissions version of the "yet you participate in society" meme.
Obviously if something isn't completely perfect it's not worth doing at all right? I think diamonds in general are kinda silly, but lab grown diamonds are 1000x better than child slave diamonds
The article conspicuously fails to ever mention these mysterious "ethical reasons" again... Apparently the three billion year geological history of natural diamonds is relevant to their marketability, but their centuries-long role in conflict and warfare isn't.
I think except for the last section ("Marketing Competition") the article makes a good point. It's basically that many companies market themselves as green alternatives, but in reality they are dubious or downright not green at all.
But then the article pushes a pro-natural diamond narrative, which is very obviously wrong. I don't think the argument before that is a reason to buy natural diamonds instead, but is actually in support of much more grounded political points.
Beware of greenwashing.
Even the supposedly clean diamonds have an environmental cost. But that's exactly the point. The current system mostly can't produce anything without an unsustainable environmental cost. It needs to be changed.
This transformation needs to happen in every country. Thanks to the "free markets", if there is a more damaging but (in the short term) cheaper way to produce stuff in a country, the firms will be incentivized to use their labor. Because capitalism incentivizes maximum profits in minimum time. Therefore, tackling climate change necessitates an internationally coordinated approach, with binding agreements.
Edit: Apparently the so-called expert, Paul Zimnisky, is an independent director of Lipari Diamond Mines. This is a very serious conflict of interest, and it casts a great shadow of doubt on the entire article. Thanks to /u/pallas for pointing it out. You can read their reply to me for further information.
I'd actually disagree here. The article does not make a good point, and is not appropriate. Under reasonable journalistic standards I think there may be an argument that it should be retracted over its failure to disclose conflicts of interest, and the author censured. Yes, greenwashing exists more generally, but this article is not making any effective claims about greenwashing. The article is largely built around 'malinformation', presenting potentially technically valid information (that diamond manufacturing uses electricity, and some electricity is generated with coal) in a misleading context, in a manner designed to make the reader believe something that is wrong (that lab-grown diamonds are not more environmentally sustainable than mined diamonds).
The article does not provide any evidence that the electricity usage of diamond manufacturing is significant or unsustainable in a way that is different from any other industry. It does not provide any numbers about electricity usage whatsoever, and does not make any claims outside of electricity usage. It appears to dismiss without comment the claim of one manufacturer that the power used is a small fraction of that used in mining. The claims being made appear to be very similar to the petroleum industry claims that electric vehicles are environmentally unfriendly, compared to ICEs, because the electricity might be generated from unsustainable sources. Those claims are widely derided, and I think the claims here should be as well.
Worse, instead of providing any evidence or comparisons, the article simply quotes, without any disclosure, a board member of Lipari Diamond Mines, and investor in several other mining companies, who claims that the diamond manufacturing companies aren't environmentally friendly. It also appears to largely rely on him for many of its claims regarding energy usage and environmental impact. At no point does it disclose that he is a diamond mining company board member.
Even if the one-tenth the power usage claims of one company are exaggerated, it is almost certain that manufacturing is far more environmentally friendly, lower power, and more sustainable, than mining, even if some electricity comes from coal right now. It is reasonable for companies to claim that they are environmentally friendly compared to mining. It does not seem 'dubious' or 'not green at all' to make such claims. I would also argue more generally that processes that significantly reduce emissions compared to other processes are beneficial, especially when, as in this case, they move emissions from the process to electricity generation, a single target that can be focused on.
I apologize if I'm rather incensed in this reply. I'm just astonished by the AP allowing this level of undisclosed conflict of interest in such an egregiously biased article.
I've taken no offense, I'm glad you elaborated on your criticism. The point about electricity source is valid. However, I want to mention that this paragraph still sounds solid, if true.
This is a lack of transparency, hence my comment about dubiousness.
I admit that I bought into the spiel of the "expert" (Zimnisky). So I very much do appreciate being corrected on that. Yes, it's an immense breach of journalistic integrity.
You'll notice most free trade agreements do not include any provisions to punish human rights violations, incentivize improving quality of life, or loosen immigration restrictions between the two countries.
This is a feature, not a bug. There would be little point in an American company setting up a manufacturing facility in Bangladesh if there were expectations that those workers (and their communities) gain access to all the comforts and privilege of the rest of the West.
All those companies that previously outsourced call center work to India are exploring other options now that wages there are rising. This has been the one constant of global trade: find the cheapest labor, relocate jobs when labor costs rise above cost to stand up new facility somewhere cheaper.
A very good point. Freedom for the capitalist but restrictions for the worker. The myth of freedom is very pervasive.
I googled "free trade agreements human rights" and this was the first thing that came up:
However, it's worth noting that the author is generally skeptical of the idea that free trade agreements measurably improve human rights. Mostly because she thinks they're toothless, writing
Regarding immigration, it is actually quite common to include immigration provisions in free trade agreements. I googled "free trade agreements immigration restrictions" and this was the first result:
This is kinda what I was referring to. Even if provisions are there (see the labor provisions in the US-Mexico-CA), they are generally phrased in a way that doesn't invalidate the agreement or impose other penalties if they are ignored. The union criticisms citing probable unenforcability and some of the effects since.
They let the politicians who vote "Yes" claim some soundbites while not actually improving the situation.
I mean....we just don't really wear jewels at all. Not even really wedding bands. I'm sure this makes several
slaveownersowners of mines in underdeveloped countries very displeased.Some of it is just costs....we pawned off some family heirloom jewels for like $500 to pay rent circa 2009.