Are lab-grown diamonds really better for the earth?

]

When Aangi Jhaveri started shopping for her wedding in 2019, she was clear that she didn’t want mined diamonds. The financial consultant, who grew up reading about environmental degradation and taking part in weekend cleanliness drives, was aware of the cost of mining gems. She wanted diamonds made in a laboratory.

Her mother was upset. “We have been saving for your wedding since you were a child. Why do you want fake jewellery?” They are not fake, Jhaveri argued; “they are just not created beneath the ground.” The fact that you could grow a diamond in a laboratory by simulating the earth’s force in a vacuum chamber fascinated her. “They are 40% cheaper and manufacturing them isn’t as destructive as mining,” Mumbai-based Jhaveri, now 30, explained to her parents.

Also read: World’s No. 1 jewellery maker is ditching mined diamonds

Her father was sold, not her mother. Jhaveri took her to a store in Mumbai and her mother spent hours asking questions till she was convinced. Jhaveri and her partner bought their engagement rings, and her mother, a pair of earrings.

Today, if you are shown both natural and lab-grown diamonds (LGDs), chances are you won’t be able to tell the difference. In fact, no one would till they are put under a microscope. LGDs are not imitation diamonds, as cubic zirconia or moissanite are. LGDs have the same chemical, physical and optical properties as the ones formed over billions of years beneath the earth. It takes 15-30 days to create them in a laboratory in Surat in Gujarat, India’s diamond capital. And they are cheaper—a one-carat mined diamond could cost as much as ₹5 lakh while its lab-made counterpart may be priced at ₹1-2 lakh.

India is on its way to becoming a hub for the production and processing of LGDs. The country, which produced 1.5 million carats last year, is playing catch-up with China, the current world leader with an output of three million carats, says a Bain & Co. report released in March. From a global perspective, production of LGDs rose to six-seven million carats last year, while mined diamonds fell to 111 million, having peaked at 152 million in 2017, notes the Antwerp World Diamond Centre, a public-private corporation, in Belgium. The total market share of LGDs is expected to account for 10% (estimated at 19.2 million carats) of the worldwide diamond market by 2030.

Much of the demand is coming from American, European and Australian shoppers, who, like Jhaveri, are seeking affordability and turning away from mined jewels as unethical and environmentally harmful. In India, awareness of LGDs is growing slowly, say experts.

The green factor

Are LGDs indeed as environment- friendly as they are made out to be? Pooja Sheth, founder of Mumbai-based Limelight Diamonds, which describes itself as India’s largest lab-grown diamond brand, says a carat LGD saves 109 gallons of water and 250 tonnes of land extraction. “Plus, we have all seen Blood Diamond to know how problematic mining is. All of this is absent in an LGD,” she adds, referring to the 2006 film on conflict diamonds.

The highly regulated mined-diamond industry, in the firing line for decades, has its arsenal ready. Sachin Jain, managing director of De Beers India, says: “The majority of LGDs are produced using fossil-fuel energy, and with the very high energy requirements for producing LGDs, this can have a significant impact. LGDs deliver minimal socioeconomic benefit in the developing world.”

A 2019 Total Clarity Report, commissioned by the Diamond Producers Association (later renamed Natural Diamond Council), suggests the greenhouse gas emissions produced when growing diamonds in a lab are three times more than mining natural diamonds. The association happens to represent seven of the world’s largest diamond miners, including Alrosa and Rio Tinto.

“At De Beers, we manage half a million acres of land in Africa for conservation purposes, six times the area used for mining, and we have a multimillion-dollar research programme that uses the host rock in which diamonds are found to capture carbon gas from the atmosphere, turning diamond mines into carbon vaults,” says Jain.

That’s not all, they maintain. Mining rules mandate that all companies have to care for the environment and livelihoods of locals. “Work on a site starts 10-12 years before operations start and once the mine is shut, companies continue to work at the site to restore it,” says Richa Singh, managing director (India) of the Natural Diamond Council.

What is clear is that while the effects of mining have been documented over the decades, the jury is still out on how “green” LGDs are. Experts suggest their main attraction may be lower price points. Some compare mined diamonds and LGDs to real and cultured pearls, saying the two will coexist.

Through all this, one point is indisputable: Supply of mined diamonds is finite.

The story so far

LGDs are over seven decades old. General Electric created them in the 1950s and put them to industrial uses like cutting and polishing. Traders mounted fierce opposition to their use in jewellery, fearing a drop in prices of mined diamonds.

Now, the diamond mining industry is running out of gem deposits to extract. Mined-diamond supply is likely to dip to 62 million carats by 2030 owing to “limitation of resources and difficulty in finding commercial discoveries”, consulting firm Frost & Sullivan had said in 2015.

The prediction is turning out to be true. A year ago, Western Australia’s Argyle mine, among the world’s largest, shut for good. There has not been any major commercial discovery in recent years.

Perhaps the biggest shift in the industry began in 2018 when De Beers—which had opposed man-made diamonds for decades—launched Lightbox, a subsidiary that sells LGDs. Earlier this year, Pandora, the world’s biggest jeweller, said it was shifting exclusively to LGDs because “it’s the right thing to do”.

Looking to the future

The Bain report points out that in India, the millennial consumer—they constitute about 410 million people—in particular considers conflict-free supply chains and carbon footprint while making a purchase.

Noting the sharp rise in demand in the past three-four years, a small but growing number of jewellery brands seem to be coming around to the idea of LGDs. Rohan Sharma, chief executive and managing director of the three-decade-old RK Jewellers in south Delhi, says he plans to soon offer man-made diamonds as well.

“We Indians are emotional people and the diamond is an emotional buy,” says Sharma. “When you start creating diamonds in bulk, they lose their charm, but these conversations about sustainability are changing the consumer, especially the young. We have started getting requests from them (for LGDs). You also need to consider that all demand patterns here are driven by the trends in the West. India will have a market for LGD, but it will take some time.”

The government-supported Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC) recently noted that polished LGD exports had nearly doubled to ₹5,175 crore in FY2021, compared to ₹2,985 crore last year.

Will the rising interest in LGDs disrupt the $78 billion diamond industry?

No, says Colin Shah, chair of the GJEPC. “LGDs and natural diamonds will coexist. Natural diamonds are the ultimate gift of love. It’s like spending ₹10 lakh on a Sabyasachi or Manish Malhotra wedding lehnga. You know you will wear it only once in your life but it will always be special.”

Last year, he says, exports of natural diamonds from India fetched $22 billion and LGDs, $1 billion.

“In comparison, $1 billion may seem small but it’s great growth in a span of three-four years. LGDs are picking up in a big way; it’s the perfect Atmanirbhar Bharat project,” says Shah. “And what sets us apart from the rest is our world’s-best craftsmanship.”

Manish Jivani, who has been producing natural diamonds for over two decades in Surat, took to LGDs three years ago. He calls them “the product of the future”. Each year, 200 workers in his factory process 7,000 carats of natural diamonds. Four machines and another 50-odd workers produce 2,000 carats of LGDs, 90% of them for export.

In three years, his revenue has tripled. “It’s a huge opportunity for us in terms of forex. Everything is home-made,” Jivani, 45, says over the phone. “When I started, India hardly had any demand but now we are getting a lot of requests from Indian brands. Many natural players are also investing in lab-grown. It’s like a gold rush. It’s like pearl, both cultured and natural ones have a dedicated market. Huge potential.” In the next five years, he believes, LGDs will become a $5 billion industry for the country.

Jivani is not exaggerating. Shah shared a similar number. “There’s a customer for each category. Shopping for diamonds won’t change; you will now just have more variety at different price points,” says Shah. “We need to create awareness about it, which is where the government can help.”

Business sparkles

“Diamonds have been a mark of status. But things have changed,” says Sheth. “Today’s millennial wants the feel-good factor and lab-grown gives you all that: green, real, price.” Sheth, who has a background in finance, learnt about LGDs from her uncle, one of the biggest producers of lab-grown diamonds in Surat.

She set up her brand in 2019 and now has stores in Mumbai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Ranchi and Goa. She has seen 60% year-on-year growth despite a lull during the first lockdown, she says. The majority of her clients are women.

Sisters Aishwarya Guptha and Soundarya Guptha, gemmologists and third-generation jewellers, opened their second Wondr Diamonds store in Chennai earlier this month and plan to expand across south India by the end of 2021.

“We started this brand last year after we did a small survey. I bought 20 lab-grown diamonds and showed it to my friends and family. They were all bought in one go,” recalls Soundarya. “India is a value-driven rather than a brand-driven market, which is why I think they will pick up here.”

Sujata Rao agrees. The business head of Orra jewellery’s soon-to-launch Divaa sub-brand, which will offer LGDs, says: “LGDs in jewellery have been growing in popularity internationally for some time now. There is also the potential with the more mature consumer who wants to buy larger diamond jewellery and this puts such elegant pieces within their price bracket without compromising on quality.”

Some remain unconvinced. Sunint Chadha of Delhi’s BSJS jewellers, founded in 1930, describes LGDs as “artificial jewellery” and asserts, “You can’t make diamonds in three months.” Tarang Arora, chief executive and creative director of Amrapali Jewels, says he toyed with the idea of using LGDs in their collections five-six years ago. “We might look at it but as a separate sub-brand because introducing it in existing collections would be risky. The customer might get confused. We don’t have the awareness yet.”

“LGDs are made in batches in factories with no limit on supply, so industry analysts expect that they will continue to become less and less valuable as costs of production decline, and they will be used in lower-priced fashion costume jewellery, just as has been the case with synthetic or laboratory-grown rubies, emeralds and sapphires,” argues Singh. Natural diamonds, she adds, will become rarer and hence, more valuable.

Vandana Jagwani, founder of one-year-old Vandals, a designer jewellery label that offers LGDs, is quick to counter concerns that LGDs may not have resale value. “They work exactly like mined diamonds. There’s cashback or you can get them redesigned,” explains the 20-something entrepreneur, who believes LGDs “are all about progress; they are the gift of technology”. She argues that the mined-diamond industry “knows we can be a strong competitor. That’s why the cold shoulder.”

Jhaveri, meanwhile, is more than happy with her purchase. Since her wedding, she has inspired many of her friends and relatives to go in for LGDs. “Nobody can make out it’s natural or lab-made till you tell them. What’s not to like?”

Also read: Jewellery that knows no gender

Tottenham 0-3 Chelsea: Player ratings to the theme of Lucky Charms marshmallows

]

Tottenham Hotspur played what we will probably look back on as one of their toughest matches all season this past Sunday, hosting Chelsea one day after the death of Spurs (and Chelsea) legend Jimmy Greaves. Despite a solid effort in the first half, Tottenham could not maintain their level of performance, gave up three goals in the second half, and fell 3-0 to the Blues.

It was a dispiriting letdown, but there are certainly positives that we as Spurs fans can take away from this performance, and I think that’s reflected in the player ratings for this match.

As I sometimes do after a disappointing results, today’s theme is something of a distraction, and with apologies to our overseas contingent, USA-centric. Anyone who has grown up here knows that one of the giants in the field of American breakfast cereals is Lucky Charms. This particular combination of the frosted wheat puffs with a wide array of colorful marshmallows has made breakfast fun for kids since the mid-1960s. The marshmallows are what elevates this cereal from the dozens that litter the shelves of American supermarkets, and as you might expect, I have TAKES on the marshmallows. We’re sticking to the core marshmallow lineup, not the host of temporary/promotional bits that have come and gone.

Here are your Tottenham player ratings to the theme of Lucky Charms marshmallow bits. Let’s fight about that instead.

5 stars: Blue Diamonds

Did you know? The original Lucky Charms marshmallows were pink hearts, yellow moons, orange stars, and green clovers. It was 11 years before they added a new marshmallow — the best one, the blue diamond — in 1975. While the end goal while eating any bowl of Lucky Charms was to eat all the oat puffs first leaving a pool of marshmallows in rapidly sweetening milk, as a kid I’d always, ALWAYS, save the blue diamonds for the very last. I have no real proof, but I’m convinced they just tasted better. Incidentally, General Mills completely ruined my childhood in 1994 by eliminating the blue diamonds and making the yellow moons blue. Ridiculous. Blue diamonds forever.

No Tottenham players were as good as the blue diamonds marshmallows.

4 stars: Green Clovers

Look, this is an Irish-themed breakfast cereal, complete with a posessive cartoon leprechaun sporting a terrible Irish accent. Of course there are going to be clovers, and of course they’re all going to have four leaves. It’d be shocking if they weren’t there. The only thing more stereotypically Irish would be marshmallows in the shape of whiskey bottles.

Hugo Lloris (Community — 3.5): Feels weird to put your keeper who let in three goals at the top of the rankings, but Hugo was absolutely immense on Sunday and made a number of amazing reaction saves that kept Spurs at least nominally in this match. Without him, Spurs lose by six.

Tanguy Ndombele (Community — 3.0): This was a very important match for Tanguy to convince Nuno (and a jittery fanbase) that he belongs out there, and he did it. Spurs’ midfield looked so much better with him in it in that first half, looking dangerous with someone who has the ability to progress the ball through midfield. Maybe he’s not a 90 minute player (neither was van der Vaart), but he should be playing in every league match going forward.

Cuti Romero (Community — 3.0): Chelsea is a staggeringly good football team, but Romero had a very solid match in his first league start, keeping Chelsea’s arguably best scorer, Romelu Lukaku, quiet the entire match. Subbed off with cramps at the end, which can be forgiven considering he had one training session since returning from Croatia.

3.5 stars: Rainbows

I’m partial to the original marshmallows over whatever newfangled crap they’re putting in the cereal these days (hourglasses? shooting stars? unicorns? gtfo) but the rainbows, first added in 1992, are a nice addition, especially with the leprechaun theme. I think LGBTQ kids also probably like the idea of having a little bit of pride in their morning bowl.

Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg (Community — 3.0): Nuno’s been playing Pierre as a shuttler this season, but in this match he sat deeper in the more defensive position we saw under Mourinho. He’s still really good there. Ran around and broke up play a ton, but struggled to contain Kante (this is not really a criticism — Kante is that good).

3 stars: Purple Horseshoes

I remember vividly when the purple horseshoes were released — Lucky Charms commercials, placed in the breaks during after-school Scooby-Doo cartoons, had been teasing the introduction of a new marshmallow over the course of months. The reveal felt like a monumental shift in the Lucky Charms firmament, especially since they gave Lucky the power to speed things up, but the overall shape and color were… well, a little underwhelming, if I’m honest. They’re fine. But the shape is now somewhat redundant with the superior rainbows.

Eric Dier (Community — 3.0): Another fairly solid display from Eric who has looked much better in a system that actually shields the back line. Had one goal line clearance, but was very unlucky to have Chelsea’s second goal go in off the post after a heavy deflection.

Giovani Lo Celso (Community — 2.5): Gio already has a #narrative that has stuck to him, so it was perhaps unsurprising to see him absolutely slated off on Twitter. For me, I thought he was fine-to-good, and a very important reason why Spurs were as good as they were in the first half, helping with the chance that Son missed. Was partially complicit for Spurs’ second goal and would likely have been better if his role was swapped with Dele’s, but I really don’t understand the (over)reaction. Overall, he was fine and he needs to play more.

Nuno Espirito Santo (Community — 2.5): Nuno doesn’t have a deep bench so I can kinda understand his subs in this match, and he seems to have learned the right lessons here — play your good players. The result was bad, but that has more to do with Chelsea being really good, and Spurs being unlucky and not very deep. While I’m not wild about the system and am starting to lose patience with the way this team is playing, that first half was about as fun and good as Spurs have been since pre-West Ham Mourinho. Let’s see if that continues.

2.5 stars: Pink Hearts

The pink hearts are the only OG marshmallow that has not been replaced, even temporarily, since 1964. There’s nothing particularly special or exemplary about them — pink is a nice color and hearts are fine, I guess. By now though it would just feel weird if they weren’t there. They’re a marshmallow touchstone in a cereal that has changed quite a bit over the years, but on balance they’re a below-average marshmallow, only there to maintain that link to the past.

Dele (Community — 2.5): I don’t think Dele was as bad as what I’ve seen from others, but he wasn’t quite up to the high pressing midfield standard that he has set in the opening few matches. Got out-jumped for Chelsea’s first goal, and to his credit was extremely self-critical in the post-match interview. Feel like he might have been more impactful in Lo Celso’s position, and vice versa.

Emerson Royal (Community — 2.5): Emerson has had two really tough assignments in his first two matches — first against Palace’s Wilfried Zaha and then Sunday against Marcos Alonso. Had one great sliding block that saved a big chance and was decent positionally, but also looked lost at times, especially going forward. He looks like he’s still adjusting to the pace of the league, and we should afford him the same level of patience as we did Reguilon when he first arrived.

Oliver Skipp (Community — 2.5): I probably wasn’t the only one who did a double-take when Skipp came in as a midfield substitute for Tanguy, but Nuno’s hands were kinda tied. Had a couple of good tackles and even some progressive passes but it’s kinda hard to give him a good rating when the midfield was completely overrun after he came in.

Son Heung-Min (Community — 2.5): Sonny was in a race for fitness after injuring his calf with Korea last week, and it showed. He didn’t have the same explosiveness that he usually does, and Chelsea was set up to negate his runs in behind. Fluffed his one big chance and looked like he didn’t have the ability to get past Chelsea’s back line. Tough assignment, especially when not fit. He’ll be fine.

Bryan Gil (Community — 2.5): Was given the unenviable task of being the team’s primary creative outlet after Ndombele and Lo Celso went out. You could see flashes of it, but not nearly enough and the support wasn’t there to actually make something happen when the team was down two goals.

2 stars: Red Balloons

I never understood the purpose of these. What’s Irish about a red balloon? What makes this a worthwhile addition to a charm-based Irish themed lucky cereal, other than that it’s a primary color with an uncomplicated design that makes the marshmallows easy to produce? Easily the lamest marshmallow to be added to the regular canon.

Sergio Reguilon (Community — 2.5): I really really like Sergio but his passing was a PROBLEM on Sunday. I can forgive him for trying to make the open pass for that one big chance instead of shooting from an acute angle, but it wasn’t the right one in retrospect. Completely lost Rudiger for Chelsea’s third goal, and just didn’t have it on Sunday.

Harry Kane (Community — 2.0): We should’ve sold him. He looks completely disinterested. Dropped deep, sometimes past the center line, to collect the ball but rarely did anything with it. One shot. This fucking guy.

1 star: Unicorns

I can’t explain exactly why I hate these. Maybe it’s because there’s nothing Irish about unicorns (they’re Mesopotamian myths) so it’s defaulting to a somewhat gendered take on “magical.” Maybe it has something to do with having horse heads in a cereal bowl reminding me of that scene from the Godfather. All I know is that I think they’re quasi-gendered trash.

No Tottenham players were as bad as the Lucky Charms unicorn marshmallow bits.

Tom Carroll Memorial Non-Rating

Davinson Sanchez

Erik Lamela Memorial Shithouse Award

[Not awarded] A strange lack of shithousery considering the way Spurs regularly shithouse Chelsea in these kinds of matches.

She means business! Meghan Markle is understated in a navy coat and wide-legged trousers

]

Megan Markle was elegant in a navy coat and wide-legged trousers. Prince Harry In New York for the first joint release since today’s Meggit.

NS Duchess of Sussex, 40, currently lives in her $ 14 million mansion California After leaving the royal obligations, I went to the oneworld observatory with my husband.

Known for their love for designer brands and rarely wearing the same outfit twice, the two mothers took this opportunity to choose business-style outfits in navy tones.

She wore a smart wool coat, flipped the collar around her neck, and wore a matching polo neck, black wide-legged pants, and her favorite navy suede Aquazzura “Purist” pumps.

Meanwhile, she wore a new diamond ring, adding a bit of charm to her outfit. And it was paired with her new mysterious pinky ring.

The ring, made by celebrity jeweler Lorraine Schwartz and reportedly worth an estimated £ 45,000, is believed to have been made from diamonds given to a couple by a mysterious donor in the Middle East.

Meghan Markle, 40, joined Prince Harry in New York and was elegant in a navy coat and wide-legged trousers for his first co-star since today’s Meggit.

Meanwhile, she wiped her hair into a smooth low bun behind her and showed off her diamond stud earrings.

The Duchess kept her makeup natural for that occasion, wiped out dark eyeshadow across her lid, and combined it with bare lipstick.

Meanwhile, she wiped her hair out to a low bun behind her, showing off Cartier’s diamond stud earrings.

Before she entered the building with the Duke, she could be seen having a dark face covering her hands.

Harry wore a complementary dark suit and tie.

Meanwhile, she added a little charm to her outfit with a new diamond ring. It was paired with her new mysterious pinky ring.

The two mothers chose a business-style outfit in navy tones and a smart wool coat with a turtleneck and wide-legged trousers for the occasion.

The couple arrived at the One World Trade Center 14 minutes late for a meeting at 8 am on Thursday.

They arrive in a black SUV and are taken to the viewing deck of a skyscraper between the 100th and 102nd floors to meet New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (60) and New York Governor Kathy Hokul (63). I was there.

As they climbed the stairs of the building, the couple held hands, and Harry waved at a fan who saw him and shouted his name.

Details about why the royal family met Democrats and what they were planning to discuss were not shared in advance.

The Duchess and Duchess seemed to adjust their outfits for an outing in New York this morning

De Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, 66, and the mayor’s son, Dante, 24, were also there to welcome the royal couple visiting from their home in Montecito, California.

A small group of taxi drivers protested the event and called on Mayor De Blasio to provide additional protection to older yellow cab drivers who have been hit by the growing popularity of ride-hailing apps such as Uber and Lyft. Protect the royal family and politicians.

Thursday’s visit is Sussex’s first public trip to New York City since the permanent move from England to Megan’s hometown of California in March 2020.

The One World Trade Center, also known as the Freedom Tower, opened in 2014 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in September 2001 destroyed the original World Trade Center Twin Towers.

When the Duchess set foot in New York today, she appeared to be wearing a collection of gold bracelets under the sleeves of her coat.

Harry and Megan will also visit the terrorist attack monument after leaving the observatory.

Was it a diamond from a Middle Eastern gift used in Megan’s mysterious pinky ring? Jewelery interest continues to obscure the Duchess of Sussex, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine earlier this week. Many were intrigued by the heightened mystery surrounding her right little finger ring. Initially, Harry and Megan were made by celebrity jeweler Lorraine Schwartz, and the ring, which is estimated to be worth £ 45,000 ($ 62,000), was made of diamonds given to a couple by a mysterious donor in the Middle East. I denied the claim. They said the ring was procured directly from the designer by a shooting stylist and had no connection to the Middle Eastern mystery leader. But on a spectacular U-turn, they later rolled back the refusal and saw only the ring on Megan’s left hand, the Chiffon’s £ 380 ($ 525) pinky ring aimed at representing women’s empowerment. I made it clear that I was doing it. No further mention of the Lorraine Schwarz ring in question on the right hand raises the question of whether Megan can hide anything about the source of the diamond first seen on the finger in October 2020. I am.

The two huge sunken pools and falling waterfalls were built in the footsteps of the original Twin Towers. The sides of the black stone pool are engraved with the names of 2,977 people killed in New York, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania.

The Sussexes itinerary will also attend the Global Citizen Live concert on Saturday in Central Park.

Featuring performances by artists such as Coldplay, Rizzo and Jennifer Lopez, it will be held at Great Lawn in Manhattan Park.

Harry, Megan and other dignitaries are attending to draw attention to Global Citizen’s call for G7 group countries and the EU to share at least one billion doses of COVID-19 vaccine with developing countries. ..

The music event also forms part of a 24-hour broadcast from cities around the world and also requires vaccine manufacturers to waive their intellectual property rights in COVID Shots.

Global Citizen Live and its backers are also urging pharmaceutical companies to share the mRNA technology used to develop vaccines with a healthcare hub backed by the South African-based World Health Organization.

Harry and Megan have been deeply involved in philanthropy since leaving the royal family sensationally in January 2020 after being dissatisfied with the pressure cooker environment and life in the limelight.

The couple also signed a large deal between Netflix and Spotify, which is rumored to be worth a total of $ 125 million to produce content for streaming and podcasting giants.

Today’s event also shows the return to work of the Duchess and Duchess, who took a few months off after the birth of their daughter Lillivet in May.

Megan had previously made several famous trips to New York to visit his friends.

The Duchess flew to Big Apple on a private jet in 2019, protesting with a five-day baby shower celebration and celebrating the imminent birth of her eldest son, Archie. About 20 friends participated, including Serena Williams and Amal Clooney.

A few months later, she returned to the state for an air travel to support her best friend Serena Williams in the US Open final.

follow us