By Helen Street
The Louvre heist thieves this autumn stole £76 million worth of Napoleonic crown jewels, reminding the world that sometimes the value of a diamond lies in its history as much as its sparkle. How does this value change in the era of lab-grown diamonds? Will lab-grown diamonds be able to capture market demand without the novelty of it coming from the earth? And most importantly, can diamonds made from ‘thin air’ truly mitigate the damage from the traditional mining industry, or are they merely luxury greenwashing?
The Diamonds’ Dirty Past
To begin comparing lab diamonds with traditionally mined diamonds, one must first examine the impact of the diamond mining industry. While natural diamonds carry global prestige, their extraction comes with significant environmental degradation and humanitarian abuses. These issues are attracting growing attention from ethically conscious consumers, influenced by social media, and are becoming more severe over time.
In 2019, global diamond production reached 135.8 million carats, contributing to an $89.18 billion market. Each of these carats comes at a substantial environmental price. Extracting these diamonds requires heavy machinery, explosives, and hydraulic equipment, resulting in substantial ecological disruption. For every carat mined, roughly 250 tonnes of earth are shifted, with some estimates placing it even higher at 1100 tonnes of soil and rock displaced. Additionally, the average per-carat environmental footprint includes 57,000 grams of greenhouse gases, 2.63 tonnes of mineral waste, and 0.48 cubic metres of water. This underlines the industry’s footprint.
Ethical concerns further complicate the industry’s legacy. Much of its “dirty past” is tied to the trade in blood diamonds. The UN defines blood diamonds as those whose sale funds military actions against internationally recognised governments and are mined in areas controlled by forces opposed to these governments. From Angola to Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, diamonds have helped fund wars that left millions displaced or dead. Today, conditions in many mining regions remain bleak. Miners endure life-threatening conditions for pay that scarcely buys a single meal, and medical care is almost entirely out of reach. In Zimbabwe’s Marange fields, military personnel have been accused of forcing women and children into manual labour and violently repressing local communities.
The Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, launched in 2003 to curb the trade in blood diamonds, was intended as the industry’s answer to these scandals. While it is often credited with reducing the share of blood diamonds from about 15% in the 1990s to under 1% by 2010, critics argue that the scheme has lost its credibility. Its narrow definition of blood diamonds excludes abuses committed by state actors, which allows for officials of recognised governments to enrich themselves at the expense of miners. Its oversight mechanisms are also limited, as once a diamond is cut and polished, its origins are virtually untraceable. For example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 40% of diamond exports remain unidentified with undisclosed sources. Meanwhile, illegal smuggling from Zimbabwe routes diamonds through Mozambique and South Africa before they reach global markets. As a result, even luxury brands such as Bulgari, Pandora, Cartier, and Tiffany & Co. cannot verify the precise mine of origin for every stone they sell.
The Diamonds’ New Alchemy
The rise of the lab-grown diamond marks a turning point in the industry, driven by major technological advances that have transformed what was once an experimental curiosity into a scalable, commercial alternative to mined stones. At the centre of this shift is the Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) method, a breakthrough that has surpassed earlier attempts to create diamonds in the lab.
The CVD Method: A Leap Beyond Early Experiments
Efforts to manufacture diamonds artificially date back decades. The earliest major success came in 1954, when General Electric produced the first synthetic diamond using the High-Pressure/High-Temperature (HPHT) method, which mimicked the extreme conditions of the Earth’s mantle. While groundbreaking, HPHT had clear limitations: the diamonds it produced were often small, tinted yellow, and full of inclusions. They lacked the clarity and size required for jewellery, and the process was too energy-intensive and costly to challenge natural diamonds.
CVD changed that. Instead of crushing carbon into diamond through extreme force, the CVD method grows diamonds in a controlled chamber. A diamond seed is placed inside an enclosed space filled with carbon-rich gas and heated. As the gas breaks apart, carbon atoms settle onto the seed and crystallise, allowing the diamond to grow layer by layer. This method not only requires a lower temperature and pressure but also gives scientists much greater control over the stone’s purity, colour, and size. This improvement finally made high-quality lab-grown diamonds viable for jewellery.
The refinement of the CVD technology has brought with it a steep decline in the cost of producing lab-grown diamonds. In 2008, producing a lab-grown diamond cost roughly $4,000 per carat. Today, insiders estimate that figure has plunged to somewhere between $200 and $300, though the true cost is a trade secret. This freefall in costs has transformed lab-grown diamonds from a niche experiment into a formidable rival to mined stones, opening the door to rapid industrial scaling and an explosion in consumer demand.
As technology has become cheaper and more efficient, the production of lab-grown diamonds has surged. In 2020, global output was estimated at 6 to 7 million carats, pioneered by China, India, and the United States. As the technology has advanced, the market has grown just as rapidly. In 2018, lab-grown diamonds held only 3.4% of jewellery sector sales worldwide. Since then, the segment has been expanding at a rate of 15 to 20 per cent annually. By 2023, lab-grown diamonds accounted for approximately 15-20% of the market by volume, signalling both the accelerating consumer demand and deepening confidence in the technology behind the stones. Lab diamonds are also challenging the traditional diamond alternative of cubic zirconia, which is a cheaper and less durable product imitating a diamond. While lab diamonds are closing the gap between cubic zirconia and other alternatives, they remain significantly more expensive and do not currently pose a significant threat to the diamond alternatives market.
Diamonds Beyond the Sparkle
If the CVD process represents a technological leap, its more radical promise lies in reframing what a diamond is and what it does. Some lab-grown diamonds are no longer just low-impact alternatives to mined stones but are being positioned as carbon-negative products. Companies such as Aether and SkyDiamond begin not with fossil-based carbon, but with carbon dioxide captured directly from the air. Through a thermochemical process, atmospheric carbon dioxide is converted into methane and fed into CVD chambers, where it crystallises into diamond. In this sense, diamonds become a permanent store of carbon. Once carbon is locked into the diamond lattice, it is one of the most stable forms carbons can take. That permanence matters symbolically and materially in a world grappling with carbon overload.
Yet the carbon story does not rest solely on the carbon in the stone itself. A one-carat lab-grown diamond only stores grams of atmospheric carbon, which is too little to function as a method of large-scale carbon sequestration. Recognising this limitation, carbon-negative diamond producers extend their claims beyond the gem. For every carat sold, companies like Aether pledge to remove tens of tonnes of additional carbon-dioxide through direct air capture, geological sequestration, mineralisation, and reforestation, while also offsetting emissions from shipping, electricity use, and logistics.
These measures raise legitimate questions regarding the validity of offsets, which is a market often criticised for weak verification and impermanence. Nonetheless, direct air capture and geological storage sit at the more credible end of the offset spectrum, especially when independently audited. So, while such diamonds are not a climate silver bullet, they represent a shift from carbon avoidance to active carbon removal, something the traditional diamond industry has never attempted.
When assessed against the environmental and ethical legacy of mined diamonds, the contrast is stark. As outlined, each carat of mined diamond carries an enormous ecological burden, from massive land displacement and water consumption to high greenhouse gas emissions and toxic waste. Lab-grown diamonds, particularly when powered by renewable energy, eliminate the need for large-scale excavation entirely and dramatically reduce mineral waste and water use. Ethical considerations are equally significant. By removing dependence on opaque global supply chains, lab diamonds bypass many of the labour abuses, safety risks, and governance failures that persist in mining regions, even under the Kimberly Process. This does not, however, erase complex questions about economic dependence on mining in developing countries, but it does challenge the assumption that luxury must be underwritten by exploitation.
Crucially, the future value of lab-grown diamonds may extend far beyond adornment. Advances in material science have revealed applications where lab-grown diamonds outperform their mined counterparts. For example, boron-doped diamonds, which can conduct electricity, are now used in advanced oxidation processes to treat heavily polluted industrial wastewater. When electrified, these diamonds can break down toxic organic compounds into biodegradable substances, replacing chemical-intensive and hazardous treatment methods. Similarly, ultra-pure diamond films are emerging as transformative materials in electronics. Diamonds conduct heat exceptionally well, allowing transistors and power devices to lose far less energy as waste heat, with reported reductions of up to 90%. In mechanical systems, diamond coatings have reduced friction by around 40%, extending component lifespans and cutting energy losses. These applications are largely inaccessible to mined diamonds, whose impurities limit their performance.
Are Lab Diamonds Green, or Green-washed?
For all their promise, lab-grown diamonds sit at the centre of a heated environmental dispute. Are they genuinely sustainable, or simply the latest example of luxury greenwashing? Greenwashing is when a company misleadingly markets itself or its products as environmentally friendly to appear more sustainable than they are. This picture is complicated by the involvement of traditional diamond companies in the synthetic market. De Beers, for example, closed its Lightbox lab-grown diamond brand in May 2025, citing limited market demand, yet retains its subsidiary, Element Six, which produces synthetic diamonds for industrial and technological applications. This illustrates that even major mining firms experiment with lab-grown diamonds while maintaining a core focus on natural diamonds.
The debate is further muddled because much of the data on diamond emissions comes from parties with vested interests. Both mining companies and lab-grown diamond firms fund life-cycle assessments that often reach conflicting conclusions, leaving consumers to navigate a landscape shaped as much by corporate rivalry as by environmental science. Consequently, the question of whether lab-grown diamonds are genuinely ‘green’ or merely ‘greenwashed’ hinges less on the existence of environmental impacts and more on which impacts are counted, how transparently they are measured, and who controls the narrative.
Mining companies have been vocal in challenging the environmental credentials of lab-grown diamonds. A Trucost ESG report for the Diamond Producers Association, an alliance of leading diamond-mining firms, claims that lab-grown diamonds can emit up to three times more carbon dioxide per polished carat than mined diamonds due to the electricity required to run CVD reactors continuously. Beyond emissions, the report also highlights the competitive relationship between lab-grown and natural diamonds. While they currently function as substitutes in overlapping markets, their trajectories may diverge. Lab-grown diamonds appeal to ethically conscious buyers, whereas natural diamonds retain value through heritage, rarity, and luxury. This perceived scarcity, however, is largely manufactured. Diamonds are far more common than consumers realise, and De Beers’ marketing campaigns have engineered high demand by framing diamonds as symbols of romance and wealth. The debate over environmental impact and marketing claims underscores the growing need for eco-labelling and regulations to prevent misleading ‘green’ claims.
Several lab-grown diamond companies have also been reprimanded by regulators, including the US Federal Trade Commission, for marketing diamonds as ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘sustainable’ without sufficient evidence. These cases underline a real risk of overreach, where environmental claims race ahead of verifiable data. The fact that many lab-grown diamonds are produced in regions still heavily dependent on fossil-fuel electricity further complicates blanket sustainability claims. If a diamond is grown using coal-powered grids, its carbon footprint can indeed rival or exceed that of a mined stone, regardless of the absence of excavation.
This is where firms like Aether and SkyDiamond attempt to distinguish themselves. Rather than framing their diamonds as low-carbon by default, they argue they are carbon-negative by design. Their model is not based on avoiding emissions alone, but on actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through direct air capture and supplementary sequestration methods, as discussed previously. Yet, limits are clear. The bulk of the claimed climate benefit comes not from the stone, but from the parallel carbon removal products that function, in effect, as high-quality offsets.
Fundamentally, the green credentials of lab-grown diamonds hinge on energy. The CVD process is undeniably energy-intensive, and without access to fully renewable grids, claims of carbon-neutrality or negativity quickly unravel. Lab diamonds are not inherently green, but they can become greener under specific conditions, including renewable power, transparent reporting, and credible carbon removal. In this sense, lab-grown diamonds are neither a pure solution nor a simple scam. They occupy a middle ground, where genuine technological potential coexists with marketing excess, and thus where the line between sustainability and greenwashing remains thin, contested, and still being drawn.
Concluding Thoughts
Ultimately, while lab-grown diamonds are not a flawless solution, they represent a meaningful improvement on the traditional mining industry. Ethically, they sidestep many of the human rights abuses, labour exploitation, and supply chain opacity that continue to plague mined diamonds. Environmentally, while their carbon footprint depends heavily on energy sources, lab diamonds avoid the vast land displacement, water pollution, and mineral waste inherent to extraction. Even where climate claims are contested, the absence of large-scale ecological destruction markets a clear departure from the industry’s destructive past.
That said, lab-grown diamonds alone will not reverse climate change. Their significance lies instead in what they signal: a shift toward cleaner production, greater transparency, and the possibility of carbon removal. With further investment, stricter standards, and technological advances, their environmental performance could improve sustainability. To accelerate this transition, consumer awareness must be actively shaped through honest advertising and supportive government policy, especially while lab-grown diamonds still occupy a relatively small share of the market. Beyond jewellery, the expanding industrial and waste-management applications of lab diamonds point to a far broader potential. In this light, the future value of diamonds may not rest only on their beauty or rarity, but on their ability to support a more sustainable industrial economy.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image Source: Unsplash