The environmental impacts and sustainable pathways of the global diamond industry

Abstract

Mining diamond poses significant and potentially underestimated risks to the environment worldwide. Here, we propose a Diamond Environmental Impacts Estimation (DEIE) model to forecast the environmental indicators, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mineral waste, and water usage of the diamond industry from 2030 to 2100 in the top diamond production countries under different Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs). The DEIE projection results indicate that the annual GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage of the global diamond industry will reach 9.65 Mt, 422.80 Mt, and 78.68 million m³ under the SSP1-1.9 scenario, and 13.26 Mt, 582.84 Mt, and 107.95 million m³ under the SSP2-2.6 scenario in 2100, respectively. We analyze the environmental impact heterogeneities and the associated driving factors across the major diamond production countries identified by our DEIE framework. In addition, we find that lab-grown diamonds can reduce annual GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage by 9.58 Mt, 421.06 Mt, and 66.70 million m³ in 2100. The lab-grown diamond substitution policy can annually save 714 million cubic meters of landfill space, harvest 255 million kilograms of rice, feed 436 million people, and lift 1.19 million households out of hunger. The lab-grown diamond substitution policy could contribute to the diamond industry’s GHG mitigation and sustainability efforts in a cost-saving manner.

Introduction

In 2019, the global diamond industry achieved a significant production volume of 135.8 million carats and a market size of $89.18 billion (Bain and Company, 2014). This industry is on a trajectory to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.0% in the next ten years, primarily fueled by the burgeoning demand for jewelry in emerging economies, particularly in Asia Pacific regions such as China and India (Pereira et al. 2019). Traditional diamond mining has raised considerable environmental concerns. It relies on heavy machinery, explosives, and hydraulic equipment to extract diamonds (Tatiya, 2005), a process that yields a staggering 57,000 grams of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, produces 2.63 tonnes of mineral waste, and consumes 0.48 m³ of water per carat (Frost and Sullivan, 2014). In contrast, the rise of lab-grown diamonds represents a vital shift towards environmental sustainability. These diamonds, which boast similar physical, chemical, and optical properties to their mined counterparts (Frank et al. 1973), are produced at a fraction of the environmental cost. Specifically, when utilizing clean energy sources, lab-grown diamonds result in a mere 0.028 grams of GHG emissions, 0.0006 tonnes of mineral waste, and 0.07 m³ of water usage per carat. This stark contrast underscores the potential for lab-grown diamonds to significantly mitigate the environmental impact associated with diamond production (Frost and Sullivan, 2014). Given the pressing need for effective climate change mitigation strategies, which includes transitioning towards low-carbon systems (Geels, 2018; Zhang et al. 2022; Chen, 2021; Wang et al. 2021; Cheng, 2020), in this paper, we estimate the environmental footprints of the global diamond mining industry, as well as the environmental impacts of lab-grown diamonds on sustainable operations of the diamond industry.

Utilizing the diamond production data and the associated economic parameters from 1970 to 2020, this paper proposes a new Diamond Environmental Impacts Estimation (DEIE) model to estimate the environmental impacts of the diamond industry by introducing three environmental assessment indicators, including GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage output. Our DEIE model estimates the diamond industry production of the top 5 diamond-producing countries and other countries, namely Australia, Russia, Botswana, The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo), and South Africa. Given the environmental impact estimation results of the top diamond-producing countries, this paper evaluates the GHG footprint, mineral waste, and water usage of the diamond industry in top diamond-producing countries from 2030 to 2100 and the potential sustainable effectiveness of lab-grown diamond substitution policy under different Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs).

Shared Socio-economic Pathways are widely used scenarios that provide different plausible futures for human societies, each with varying degrees of challenges and opportunities for mitigating climate change (Greve et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2023; Sardain et al. 2019; Pan et al. 2017). These pathways are often combined with Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) to explore the effects of different emissions trajectories on the climate (Kriegler et al. 2012). Combined SSPs with RCPs (SSP-RCP) allow multiple assumptions about ambitions to mitigate climate change, resulting in differing emissions within the same general socio-economic narrative (Pan et al. 2017; Kriegler et al. 2014). This approach is also widely used in current sustainable development research. For example, Cammarano et al. (Cammarano et al. 2022). illustrate that the global production of processing tomatoes in the main production areas will decrease by 6% by 2050 based on the SSP-RCP. Estoque et al. (Estoque et al. 2019). consider the five SSPs to portray a range of plausible futures for the region’s forests, employing a state-of-the-art land change modelling procedure and remotely sensed data. Tang et al. (Tang et al. 2022). point out that carbon mitigation costs can be more than offset by health co-benefits in 2050, bringing a net benefit of 393–3017 billion USD (in 2017 USD value) under the SSP1-1.9. Cui et al. (Cui et al. 2022). predict the emissions of 59 countries (excluding China and India) with emissions growing faster than the global average under different SSPs. He et al. (He et al. 2023). analyze the constrained future brightening of solar radiation and its implication for China’s solar power under the SSP1-2.6, the SSP2-4.5, and the SSP5-8.5.

In our research, we employ the SSP-RCP framework to assess the sustainability of lab-grown diamonds as alternatives to mined diamonds within the diamond industry. Specifically, we consider two socio-economic pathways: the SSP1-1.9, which outlines a scenario enabling society to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global warming well below 2 °C, aiming for 1.5 °C (Rogelj et al. 2016), and the SSP2-2.6, which represents a pathway with moderate challenges to both mitigation and adaptation efforts (Hofmann et al. 2019). One of the primary reasons for selecting the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6 to assess the sustainability of lab-grown diamonds is their varied challenges and opportunities in addressing climate change. The SSP1-1.9, a low-emission scenario, anticipates a sustainable future through a shift to renewable energy, enhanced resource efficiency (Yang et al. 2023), and increased investments in sustainable development (Purohit et al. 2022). Conversely, the SSP2-2.6 foresees continued emission growth (Stegmann et al. 2022), albeit slower, focusing more on adapting to climate change impacts than reducing emissions.

In the contexts of the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6, the diamond industry may undergo a series of fundamental changes reflecting responses to environmental protection and sustainability trends. Under the SSP1-1.9 scenario, the diamond industry is expected to shift towards more sustainable practices. Due to their lower environmental impact, lab-grown diamonds may gain a larger market share, especially among consumer groups that are more sensitive to sustainable production methods. Moreover, there will be an increased global demand for transparency and ethical standards regarding the origin of diamonds, prompting the industry to adopt more responsible measures. In this scenario, the transformation of the diamond industry will focus on reducing environmental impacts while meeting the growing consumer demand for ethics and sustainability. Under the SSP2-2.6 scenario, changes in the diamond industry might be more moderate. Technological advancements will focus on improving mining efficiency and reducing resource waste but may not be as rapid or comprehensive as in the SSP1-1.9 scenario. The acceptance of lab-grown diamonds will also increase, but mined diamonds will still maintain their market position, especially in the high-end market. The diamond industry may see more influence from investors focused on environmental and social governance (ESG), driving the industry towards more sustainable mining and trading practices. By applying our Diamond Environmental Impacts Estimation (DEIE) model under the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6 scenarios, we aim to forecast the environmental impacts of the diamond industry from 2030 to 2100 in a standard and comparative manner. Our analysis sheds light on lab-grown diamonds’ effectiveness in steering the diamond industry towards a more sustainable future.

According to the DEIE projection results, the global diamond industry is expected to have significantly higher annual GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage under the SSP2-2.6 compared to the SSP1-1.9 in 2100. Specifically, the annual GHG emissions are projected to increase from 9.65 Mt to 13.26 Mt, marking a 37.4% increase from the SSP1-1.9 to the SSP2-2.6. Mineral waste is projected to increase from 422.80 Mt to 582.84 Mt, representing a 38% increase from the SSP1-1.9 to the SSP2-2.6. Water usage is also projected to increase from 78.68 million m³ to 107.95 million m³, indicating a 37.2% increase from the SSP1-1.9 to the SSP2-2.6. These projections highlight the potential environmental challenges associated with the continued growth of the diamond industry under a more moderate challenge to both mitigation and adaptation scenarios (the SSP2-2.6) compared to a low-emissions scenario (the SSP1-1.9). Specifically, the DEIE projection framework indicates that Botswana’s GHG emissions under the SSP2-2.6 are 3.19 million tons (Mt) in 2100, accounting for 48.92% of local production-based GHG emissions in 202012 in 2010 (49.4 Mt) (Tugov, 2013). Under the SSP2-2.6, the annual mineral waste of Botswana’s diamond industry will reach 114.42 Mt in 2100, four times higher than that of French municipal waste (Senthilkumar et al. 2014). DEIE emphasizes that the water consumption of the diamond industry in Botswana and DR Congo can reach 26.90 million m³ (2100) and 26.75 million m³ (2100), respectively.

This paper also examines the sustainable pathway and potential sustainable effectiveness of lab-grown diamonds as a substitute for natural diamonds. In 2100, the use of lab-grown diamonds can potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 9.58 Mt and decrease mineral waste by 421.06 Mt. At the international level, the reduced mineral waste exceeds twice total municipal waste of China in 2018 (203 Mt) (Qu et al. 2019; Mi et al. 2020). This reduction in mineral waste can save 714 million cubic meters of landfill space,3 produce 255 million kilograms of rice,4 feed 436 million people5, and prevent hunger for 1.19 million households in one year. Besides, the water resources saved by lab-grown diamonds could exceed 10 million m³. In addition, the initial cost of lab-grown diamonds is one-third that of mined diamonds, and the final product cost is 42% less (Rrustemi and Tuchschmid, 2020). Thus, promoting the substitution of lab-grown diamonds for natural diamonds can support the diamond industry’s sustainability efforts by reducing costs (Smith et al. 2010). The development of the lab-grown diamond industry can be considered a green innovation that improves human well-being while minimizing harm to the environment.

The contributions of this study lie in the following aspects. Firstly, this paper introduces the manufacturing processes of natural and lab-grown diamonds and presents a DEIE model that explicitly evaluates the environmental impact associated with each process. Secondly, under Shared Social Economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), this paper projects the GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage associated with mined diamonds in different regions from 2030 to 2100 under the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6 scenarios. Thirdly, this article presents four scenarios that reflect differences in future economic levels and lab-grown diamond market share and examines the environmental benefits of lab-grown diamonds under each scenario. Fourthly, this study emphasizes the importance of considering sustainability in decision-making processes in the diamond industry and highlights the potential benefits of using lab-grown diamonds as an eco-friendly alternative to natural diamonds.

Methods

Construction of diamond environmental impacts estimation (DEIE) database

The Diamond Environmental Impacts Estimation model uses the World Mineral Statistics (WMS) archive data (https://www2.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsUk/statistics/) developed by the British Geological Survey to estimate the worldwide, country-based, and time-varying diamond industry environmental impacts. Since the WMS archive data are generated and verified by regularly exchanging information with geological survey organizations, minerals bureaus, and other related official and commercial entities, the WMS raw data quality is assured and robust for DEIE diamond historical environmental impact data construction. Given the diamond industry production data availability of World Mineral Statistics (WMS) archive data, we collect the worldwide country-based diamond historical production data from 1970 to 2020.

As demonstrated in Supplementary Table 1 in supplementary information, we list the top 5 diamond-producing countries around the world during our DEIE sample period, namely Australia, Russia, Botswana, DR Congo, and South Africa. As of 2020, the top 5 diamond production countries contribute to 73% of the world’s total annual diamond production, whereas Australia, Russia, Botswana, DR Congo, and South Africa produce 911, 890, 846, 588, and 485 million Carats, respectively. In this paper, the DEIE model regards the top 5 diamond-producing countries and other countries’ historical production data as input. Then we calculate the projected diamond industry GHG emissions, mineral waste disposed or stored and water usage. In addition, we collect the lab-grown diamond market share from statista.com to obtain the annual diamond production data of our DEIE modelling. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1076048/global-market-share-of-lab-grown-diamonds/).

The associated greenhouse gas emissions of the diamond industry consist of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) fluorinated gases, and hydrofluorocarbons. In DEIE, greenhouse gas is represented by carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq), converting other pollutants to CO₂ to standardize the climate impact of diamond production activity. The water usage includes potable and non-potable water. As suggested by previous works by Imperial College London and Frost & Sullivan (Frost and Sullivan, 2014), we claim the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq) per carat (kg/carat), mineral waste (tons/carat), and water usage (m³/carat) for both mined and lab-grown diamonds in Supplementary Table 2 from the supplementary information. In sum, the total environmental indicators, including GHG emissions (evaluated in CO₂-eq), mineral waste, and water usage of worldwide diamond production activity, are formulated as follows:

1

$${EI}_{j,t}=\sum _{t\in N}{I}_{j,m}{M}_{i,t}+I_{j,l}{L}_{i,t}$$Where ${\mathit{EI}}_{j,t}$ refers to the global environmental indicator j in time t, where the environmental indicators consist of GHG emission (CO₂-eq), mineral waste and water usage. $I_{j,m}$, $I_{j,l}$ are the corresponding intensity of three environmental indicators for mined and lab-grown diamonds respectively. The environmental indicator estimation time span $N$ of this paper is from 1970 to 2020. $M_{i,t}$, $L_{i,t}$ are the annual mined and lab-grown diamond production amount of country $i$ in year t respectively, where the country indicators are divided into Australia, Russia, Botswana, DR Congo, South Africa, and other countries.

Diamond environmental impacts estimation

Following the standard industrial GHG emission estimation and projection literature, we estimate the global diamond industry production and the associated environmental indicators based on long-term socio-economic projections. Developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), long-term socio-economic projections provide the country-level GDP and population projections from the so-called Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSP). By estimating diamond industry GHG emissions based on GDP and population historical data, our estimation results are compared to other environmental impact estimation and projection papers. Hence, we obtain the country-level GDP and population data from the World Bank dataset (https://data.worldbank.org/), which consists of the GDP and population of Australia, Botswana, Canada, DR Congo, South Africa, and the rest of the world. Given the historical diamond industry GHG emission derived from the above section, the emission data are regressed by country-level GDP and population data from the period of 1970 to 2020. We thus run the specifications as follows:

2

$${\mathit{EI}}_{i,j,t}={\alpha }_{i,j}+{\beta }_{i,j}{\mathit{GDP}}_{i,j}+{\gamma }_{i,t}{\mathit{POP}}_{i,t}+{\epsilon }_{i,j,t}$$

Equation (2) serves as the foundation for evaluating the environmental impact attributable to the diamond industry across different nations over time. Specifically, ${\mathit{EI}}_{i,j,t}$ represents the annual estimated environmental indicators for country $i$ in year $t$, where the environmental indicators encompass carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂-eq), mineral waste, and water usage. These indicators are crucial for understanding the environmental footprint of diamond mining and processing activities. ${\mathit{GDP}}_{i,t}$ and ${\mathit{POP}}_{i,t}$ denote the gross domestic product and population of country $i$ in year $t$, respectively, highlighting the economic and demographic dimensions influencing environmental outcomes. The coefficients ${\alpha }_{i,j}$, ${\beta }_{i,j}$, and ${\gamma }_{i,j}$ quantify the relationship between the historical environmental indicators and the explanatory variables of GDP and population, offering insights into how economic growth and population dynamic are associated with environmental impacts in the context of the diamond industry. The error term, ${\epsilon }_{i,j,t}$, captures unobserved factors that might affect the estimated environmental indicators. By running the above regression specifications, we obtain the estimated coefficients ${\hat{\alpha }}_{i,j}$, ${\hat{\beta }}_{i,j}$, and ${\hat{\gamma }}_{i,j}$ to predict the future environmental indicators related to the diamond industry in the next section.

To assess the difference between real historical behaviors and DEIE modelling estimations, the reality and statistical test are performed by comparing the estimated data with historical time-series. The annual carbon emission time-series data of mined diamond production amount from the period of 1970 to 2020 are utilized to verify the parameter consistencies of DEIE modelling. We introduce R² to interpret the goodness of fit and parameter consistencies of DEIE modelling. As suggested by the previous studies (Oliva, 2003; Summers et al. 2011), the reality and statistical results are generally considered to be acceptable if the R² is greater than 0.9. We report the results in Supplementary Fig. 1 from supplementary information, where all the R² of our DEIE modelling estimations are greater than 0.9 for our sample countries, i.e., the proposed DEIE modelling has significant consistencies with actual diamond industry time-series data.

Future environmental impacts of the diamond industry

As mentioned above, developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSP) provide the standard and comparative projections of GDP and population to the year 2100. We follow the SSP scenario developed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/). In addition, the energy consumption projections are derived from the SSP and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) integrated assessment scenarios. Previous works also provide the possible combinations of SSPs and RCPs by calculating the mitigation costs to achieve the carbon reduction targets based on socio-economic projections. As a result, we follow the frequently used combinations (the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6) for our diamond industry environmental impact projections.

3

$${\mathit{PEI}}_{i,j,k,t}={\hat{\alpha }}_{i,j}+{\hat{\beta }}_{i,j}{\mathit{GDP}}_{i,k,t}+{\hat{\gamma }}_{i,j}{\mathit{POP}}_{i,k,t}$$

Equation (3) outlines the methodology for projecting environmental indicators related to the diamond industry, incorporating future socio-economic scenarios. Specifically, ${\mathit{PEI}}_{i,j,k,t}$ symbolizes the projected environmental impacts for country $i$ in year $t$, under socio-economic scenario k, encompassing projections of GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage associated with diamond extraction and processing. These projections are based on the regressed parameters ${\hat{\alpha }}_{i,j}$, ${\hat{\beta }}_{i,j}$, and ${\hat{\gamma }}_{i,j}$ derived from Eq. (2), thereby ensuring a cohesive analytical framework. The socio-economic scenarios, represented by k (e.g., the SSP1-1.9 or the SSP2-2.6), provide a structured approach to anticipate changes in GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water consumption from 2030 to 2100, considering various pathways of socio-economic development. ${\mathit{GDP}}_{i,k,t}$ and ${\mathit{POP}}_{i,k,t}$ indicate the projected GDP and population of country $i$ in year $t$ under socio-economic scenario k. The projection period for the diamond GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage is from 2030 to 2100. In terms of evaluating the environmental impact reduction effectiveness of the lab-grown diamond substitution policy, the projected lab-grown diamond market share is obtained by the historical lab-grown market growth in the previous section. We claim a regular substitution speed and an upgrade speed that the lab-grown diamond market share growth rate is doubled to evaluate the GHG emission reduction effectiveness of lab-grown diamond substitution policy.

Results

Diamond industry environmental impacts evaluation

Figure 1 presents the diamond production flowchart to theoretically illustrate the environmental impacts of both mined and lab-grown diamonds. Mined diamonds and lab-grown diamonds have distinct production routes. Mined diamonds typically go through eight stages, including exploration, mining, ore processing, cleaning, sorting, packaging, and sales of rough diamonds (Meyer and Seal, 2018).

Fig. 1 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Diamond production flowchart.

The blue section represents the production process of natural diamonds, which consists of eight different processes: Exploration, mining, ore processing, cleaning, sorting, packaging, and sales of rough diamonds. Both natural and lab-grown diamonds need to be cut and polished (marked in yellow) and sold as gemstones (sales of gemstones). The green section illustrates the two different methods used to produce diamonds in the laboratory, namely High Temperature and Pressure (HTHP) and Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD). The final step in this flow chart (in grey) is closure and rehabilitation, as the stones may eventually be subject to after-sales requirements such as repair or cleaning.

Currently, there are two environmentally friendly production methods for lab-grown diamonds. The first is the High-Pressure High-Temperature (HTHP) system, where seed crystals are placed in pure graphitic carbon, exposed to a temperature of about 1500 °C and pressurized to about 1.5 million pounds per square inch in a chamber (Zeng et al. 2022). The second method is known as Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD), which involves placing seeds in a sealed chamber filled with a carbon-rich gas and heating it to around 800 °C (Fan et al. 2018).

Meyer and Seal (Meyer and Seal, 2018) emphasize that diamond mining requires an entire factor more energy to extract an underground diamond from Earth than to create one above ground, which contributes to environmental deterioration. Mining poses significant and potentially underestimated risks to tropical forests worldwide (Sonter et al. 2017). In Brazil’s Amazon, mining drives deforestation far beyond operational lease boundaries (Sonter et al. 2017). Also, mining threatens species diversity (Sonter et al. 2020). However, unlike mined diamonds, lab-grown diamonds are produced inside machines that simulate the internal state of the earth rather than existing on the earth (Kim et al. 2011). As a result, diamond producers can use clean energy to produce diamonds instead of fuel oil to generate electricity. In addition to the convenience of using clean energy, lab-grown diamonds also avoid mineral waste generated in the mining process, such as gangue, wall rock, tailings, etc (Ashfold et al. 2020). In the production of lab-grown diamonds, water use is reduced by eliminating panning. Studies show that using clean energy for lab-grown diamonds results in 0.028 g of emissions, 0.0006 t of mineral waste, and 0.07 m³ of water per carat, compared to mining’s 57 kg of GHG emissions, 2.63 t of mineral waste, and 0.48 m³ of water per carat (Frost and Sullivan, 2014).

Our Diamond Environmental Impacts Estimation (DEIE) assesses greenhouse gas emissions, mineral waste, and water usage in diamond mining. The associated greenhouse gas emissions of the diamond industry consist of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) fluorinated gases, and hydrofluorocarbons. By analyzing historical data, we estimate the above factors for the top 5 diamond-producing countries (Australia, Russia, Botswana, DR Congo, South Africa) from 1970 to 2020. These countries accounted for 73% of the global diamond output in 2020, with production figures of 911, 867, 846, 588, and 485 million carats, respectively.

Figure 2 presents a comparison of the environmental impacts between the diamond industry and other metal industries, namely gold, nickel, aluminum, and iron. Compared to other metal industries, the diamond industry’s GHG emissions, mineral waste generation, and water usage per ton of production are significantly higher. As shown in Fig. 2, the GHG emissions produced by one ton of diamond production are twice that of gold and 30,000 times that of iron ore. The difference between diamond mining and other metals in mineral waste generation is more substantial. After standardizing the unit, the mineral waste generated by diamonds disposed or stored is up to 2 Mt, while other metals are less than 10 tons. The mineral waste created by mining one ton of diamonds equals the waste generated by mining 105 Mt of nickel. The abundance of mineral waste is caused by the unique diamond mining method. Specifically, in open-pit mining, miners need to find the geological structure of the Kimberley pipe (Field et al. 2008), a funnel-shaped rock pipe extending deep into the earth, to extract diamonds. The Kimberley Pipe is deep and ancient, so it is often found beneath overburden (such as sand and soil), and in some cases, over 1 kilometre (km) below ground (Cui et al. 2022). That is to say, a large amount of surplus waste rock, sand, soil, and processed kimberlite can accumulate in the immediate vicinity of such areas. In addition, coastal and inland alluvial mining, and marine mining also require mining companies to remove sand and soil before mining (Field et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2016). The total water consumption of diamond mining operations, including potable water and non-potable water, shows that producing the same unit of rough diamonds requires 1.92 times more water than gold and 52,345 times more water than bauxite and alumina. The total water consumption for diamond production includes using fresh water in mining activities and water for diamond cleaning. Water availability is essential for agriculture (Lu et al. 2015), thus the demand and market expansion of diamonds will lead to a more severe environmental impact on the global diamond industry compared to its current circumstances (Maconachie and Binns, 2007).

Fig. 2 [Images not available. See PDF.]

The environmental impacts of diamond compared to metal industries.

a–c show the comparative results of the global average environmental impacts of mining one ton of rough diamonds and one ton of other metals (Gan and Griffin, 2018; Yellishetty et al. 2008; Jiang and Xu, 2017; Kusin et al. 2019). Selected metals include iron ore, gold, bauxite, alumina, and nickel. a–c distinguish GHG emissions (tons), mineral waste disposed or stored (tons), and both potable and non-potable water usage (m³) in the environmental indicators category by blue (GHG emissions), purple (mineral waste) and green (water usage), respectively.

Diamond industry environmental impacts projection

This paper outlines two scenarios, the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6, blending socioeconomic developments with climate policy goals through Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). In studying the future changes in the diamond industry under these scenarios, we focus on the role of technological advancements in reducing the energy consumption and resource waste associated with diamond mining. Advanced exploration technologies can minimize surface damage, and automation enhances mining efficiency. These advancements are expected to be evident in the SSP1-1.9. Secondly, considering the varying degrees of dependence on natural resources among different countries, national resource constraints also become a significant factor affecting natural diamond mining. In resource-rich countries, technological progress helps utilize these resources more efficiently while reducing environmental damage. However, in countries with limited resources, especially under the SSP2-2.6, technological innovation is equally crucial but may focus more on the development of lab-grown diamonds to alleviate reliance on natural diamond resources.

We forecast GHG emissions, mineral waste, and water usage in the diamond mining sector from 2030 to 2100 under the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6. While mining traditionally depends more on historical than social factors, leading to the use of autoregressive models for ore prediction, these require high autocorrelation coefficients. To improve the prediction accuracy and combine different scenarios of SSPs, this study examines different variables contained in SSPs related to diamond production and finds suitable factors as regression parameters, the regression process is illustrated in the methods section. The prediction results are presented in Fig. 3. The SSPs provide various variables for five regions, namely ASIA, LAM, MAF, OECD, and REF, from 2030 to 2100. Australia is a member of the OECD, Russia belongs to the REF, and Botswana, Congo, and South Africa are part of the MAF region.

Fig. 3 [Images not available. See PDF.]

Diamond industry environmental impact projections under two SSPs scenarios.

a–f represent GHG emissions projections under the assumptions of the SSP1-1.9 (blue) and the SSP2-2.6 (red); g–l exhibit mineral waste disposed or stored projection under the SSP1-1.9 (green) and the SSP2-2.6 (orange); m–r show both potable and non-potable water usage projection of the SSP1-1.9 (purple) and the SSP2-2.6 (yellow). All projections are presented with shaded confidence intervals. Each data is presented as mean values ± standard error of the mean (SEM) based on 95% confidence intervals calculated by two-tailed t-tests (p < 0.05). The selected regions include Australia (a, g, m); Russia (b, h, n); Botswana (c, i, o); DR Congo (d, j, p); South Africa (e, k, q) and Others (f, l, r). The horizontal coordinates present years from 2030 to 2100 and the vertical coordinates for GHG emissions and mineral waste are millions of tones; vertical coordinates for water usage are millions of m³.

DEIE projection results (Fig. 3) indicate the annual GHG emissions, mineral waste and water usage of the global diamond industry will reach 9.65 Mt, 422.80 Mt, and 78.68 million m³ under the SSP1-1.9 scenario; 13.26 Mt, 582.84 Mt and 107.95 million m³ under the SSP2-2.6 scenario in 2100 respectively. We find environmental impact heterogeneities across the major diamond production countries. Specifically, the Australian diamond mining industry is projected to emit 1.70 Mt in 2030 under the SSP1-1.9, peaking at 1.86 Mt in 2070, before declining to 1.74 Mt in 2100. According to the forecast results, the GHG emissions of the diamond mining industry in Australia in 2070 will exceed the total GHG emissions of Mozambique in 2019 (Friedlingstein et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2022). Similar to the SSP1-1.9, the GHG emissions of the SSP2-2.6 in Australia peaks in 2070 (1.82 Mt), then decreases to 1.77 Mt in 2100. The DEIE forecasting result in 2070 is higher than the total emissions of the Sudanese construction sector in 2019 (Cui et al. 2022). In comparison to the Australian diamond mining industry, GHG emissions in Russia showed a downward trend. Its emissions will decrease year by year from 1.70 Mt in 2030 to 1.12 Mt under the SSP1-1.9. The downward trend of emissions in the SSP2-2.6 scenario is relatively gentle, and the difference between 2100 and 2030 is 0.24 Mt. Despite the downward trend, under the scenario of moderate challenges to both mitigation and adaptation to environmental problems, the GHG emissions of Russia’s diamond mining industry in 2100 will also be 1.4 Mt.

GHG emissions from diamonds in Botswana, DR Congo, and South Africa vary considerably depending on the scenario assumptions. The DEIE model shows that Botswana’s GHG emissions reach 2.44 Mt peak under the SSP1-1.9 in 2080, accounting for 59.51% of its GHG emissions in the electricity and heat sector in 2020 (Friedlingstein et al. 2019). Under the SSP2-2.6 scenario, Botswana’s GHG emissions will increase year by year from 1.91 Mt in 2030 to 3.19 Mt in 2100. In this scenario, the emissions in 2100 account for 48.92% of Botswana’s production-based carbon emissions in 2020, which is larger than the local agriculture, transportation, manufacturing & construction, and building sectors in 2019 (Friedlingstein et al. 2019). The DEIE model reveals that Botswana’s GHG emissions from diamond mining in 2100 will match the total emissions of its building sector from 2009 to 2019. Similarly, DR Congo’s emissions trend under the SSP1-1.9 peaks at 2.43 Mt in 2080, nearly matching its total 2020 CO₂ emissions. Under the SSP2-2.6, DR Congo’s emissions will rise from 1.90 Mt in 2030 to 3.18 Mt in 2100, exceeding its 2020 emissions by 0.7 Mt (Liu et al. 2022; Friedlingstein et al. 2020). High GHG emissions pose a significant risk to Botswana and DR Congo, threatening environmental and developmental sustainability. South Africa’s diamond mining GHG emissions are projected to be 1.15 Mt by 2080 under the SSP1-1.9 and increase to 1.50 Mt by 2100 under the SSP2-2.6. Emissions from diamond mining in other areas have been decreasing annually since 2030 under both scenarios, indicating a future concentration of the diamond industry in major mining countries like Botswana and DR Congo.

In both the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6 scenarios, the mineral waste from Australia’s diamond mining increases initially, peaking in 2070 at 85.70 Mt and 84.1 Mt, respectively, surpassing Australia’s 2019 total waste production (74.07 Mt) and the waste from its oil, gas, copper, silver-lead-zinc, and coal sectors (Pickin et al. 2020). By 2100, Russia diamond industry’s mineral waste decreases to 51.88 Mt (the SSP1-1.9) and 68.26 Mt (the SSP2-2.6), which is higher than the Russian municipal waste in 2010 (49.4 Mt) (Tugov, 2013). DEIE prediction results show that Botswana’s annual mineral waste of the diamond industry in 2080 under the SSP1-1.9 scenario is 112.61 Mt. According to OECD data (https://data.oecd.org/waste/municipal-waste.htm), it is more than twice that of Germany’s municipal waste in 2020. Under the SSP2-2.6, the annual waste will reach 114.42 Mt in 2100, four times higher than that of French municipal waste (Alzamora and Barros, 2020). Botswana’s diamond mining waste would need 1.91 billion cubic meters of landfill space, potentially yielding 68.20 million kilograms of rice, feeding approximately 116.58 million people and supporting 31,000 households annually. Congo’s mineral waste is projected to require 2.49 million cubic meters of landfill space, reaching 111.95 Mt under the SSP1-1.9 and 146.55 Mt under the SSP2-2.6 by 2080. South Africa’s diamond waste is expected to increase to 52.96 Mt by 2080 under the SSP1-1.9, then drop to 50.35 Mt by 2100, while under the SSP2-2.6, it will rise steadily from 41.51 Mt in 2030 to 69.33 Mt in 2100.

The DEIE prediction results show that the water usage of the Australian diamond industry peaks in 2070 under two scenarios, 15.64 million m³ (the SSP1-1.9) and 15.34 million m³ (the SSP2-2.6), respectively, which is ten times of the total water usage of the Australian mining sector in 2017 (Northey et al. 2019). DEIE shows the maximum water consumption of the diamond industry in Russia could reach 14.48 million m³ (the SSP2-2.6, 2030). Under the SSP2-2.6 scenario, the water consumption of the diamond industry in Botswana and DR Congo can reach 26.90 million m³ (2100) and 26.75 million m³ (2100), respectively. In contract, South Africa’s diamond industry is projected to consume 12.64 million m³ (2100) of water under the SSP2-2.6 scenario.

Environmental benefits evaluation of lab-grown diamond

The Paris Agreement aims to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 °C, and emissions are supposed to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 (Rogelj et al. 2016). To achieve this ambition, a multitude of environmental issues caused by the global diamond industry need to be alleviated by appropriate policies. As an alternative, lab-grown diamonds have been introduced to the diamond market in recent years. In 2016, the market share of lab-grown diamonds was only 1.7%. It reached to 3.8% and in 2021 with an annual growth rate of 0.42% (Pereira et al. 2019). This paper predicts that without external factors, lab-grown diamonds will hold a 36.98% market share by 2100, serving as the baseline. This projection is based on historical growth rates. It also considers an optimistic scenario where the market share could reach 72.26% due to increased government support, media attention, changing preferences, and environmental awareness, potentially doubling the baseline figure. Two market share scenarios, baseline and optimistic, are analyzed under the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6, resulting in four distinct outcomes. Table 1. shows the environmental impact under the four scenarios and demonstrates the emission reduction benefits of lab-grown diamonds (Frost and Sullivan, 2014).

Table 1. Description of scenario settings.

Scenarios	Description of scenario settings	Lab-grown diamond market share growth rate	GDP
BaselineSSP1-1.9	Baseline scenario of lab-grown diamond substitution under SSP1-1.9	0.42%	Sustainable growth
BaselineSSP2-2.6	Upside scenario of lab-grown diamond substitution under SSP2-2.6	0.42%	Current development patterns
UpsideSSP1-1.9	Baseline scenario of lab-grown diamond substitution under SSP1-1.9	0.84%	Sustainable growth
UpsideSSP2-2.6	Upside scenario of lab-grown diamond substitution under SSP2-2.6	0.84%	Current development patterns

The GHG emissions across four scenarios will exceed 9 Mt in 2030. The SSP2-2.6 lab-grown diamonds scenario predicts 10.28 Mt emissions in 2030, with the lowest being 9.27 Mt under the UpsideSSP1-1.9. By 2050, emissions under baseline scenarios are projected at 10.76 Mt (the SSP2-2.6) and 9.75 Mt (the SSP1-1.9), while the upside scenarios forecast 8.93 Mt and 8.09 Mt, respectively. In 2100, the BaselineSSP2-2.6 emissions are expected at 7.38 Mt, with the BaselineSSP1-1.9 being 2.02 Mt lower. The BaselineSSP2-2.6’s total emissions could reach 8.36 Mt, while the UpsideSSP1-1.9 might only see 2.67 Mt, a 5.69 Mt difference. The DEIE estimates that global diamond mining in 2030 will produce up to 44.94 Mt of mineral waste under the BaselineSSP1-1.9, with a minimum of 40.51 Mt under the UpsideSSP2-2.6, potentially containing hazardous substances like heavy metals. These wastes are often stored unsafely, posing health, economic, and environmental risks. By 2050, waste will range from 47.13 Mt (the BaselineSSP1-1.9) to 35.41 Mt (the UpsideSSP2-2.6). By 2100, as lab-grown diamonds gain market share, global mineral waste will decrease to a minimum of 11.74 Mt. The water consumption of the diamond industry in 2030 is 7.68 million m³ to 8.44 million m³. In 2050, the water consumption under the BaselineSSP2-2.6 is close to 9 million m³. Two scenarios in 2100 under the upside assumption generate 2.99 million m³ (the SSP1-1.9) and 4.12 million m³ (the SSP2-2.6), respectively.

This paper also calculates the sustainable benefits of lab-grown diamonds. Figure 4 shows that the environmental impact reduction effect of lab-grown diamonds is increasing during the whole sample period. The emission mitigation amount of the four scenarios in 2030 is below 1.5 Mt; The UpsideSSP2-2.6 has the highest emission reduction effect (1.50 Mt) in 2030. The emission reduction benefit of the upside scenario in 2060 is higher than 3.51 Mt. In 2100, lab-grown diamonds can reduce emissions by 9.58 Mt in the UpsideSSP2-2.6. Apart from that, lab-grown diamonds are effective in reducing mineral waste. In 2030, its reduction effect in the baseline scenario is higher than 35 Mt, and that in the upside scenario is higher than 60 Mt. In 2050, the lab-grown diamond industry can reduce mineral waste by more than 100 Mt, with a maximum scenario of 169 Mt. The mineral waste reduction effect is particularly obvious in 2100. Under the scenario of the baseline market share of lab-grown diamonds, the mineral waste reduction is 247.81 Mt (the SSP1-1.9) and 341.33 Mt (the SSP2-2.6), respectively, while the upside substitution expresses that the mineral waste reduction can reach 305.45 Mt (the SSP1-1.9) and 421.06 Mt (the SSP2-2.6). At the international level, according to OECD data (https://data.oecd.org/waste/municipal-waste.htm), the reduced mineral waste in 2100 under the Upside SSP2-2.6 exceeds twice the total municipal waste of China (203 Mt) (Qu et al. 2019). It can save 714 million cubic meters of landfill space for mineral waste. This space could be used to grow 255 million kilograms of rice, feed 436 million people, and free 1.19 million households from hunger within one year. In terms of water use, the water-saving efficiency of lab-grown diamonds will be about 5 million m³ to 10 million m³ in 2030. The UpsideSSP2-2.9 could save 26 Mt of water in 2050. In 2100, under the BaselineSSP2-2.6, the UpsideSSP1-1.9, and the UpsideSSP2-2.6, the water resources that can be saved by lab-grown diamonds are higher than 10 million m³.

Fig. 4 [Images not available. See PDF.]

The sustainable pathways of lab-grown diamond.

This figure summarizes the baseline and optimistic sustainable effectiveness of lab-grown diamonds in 2030, 2060, and 2100 based on the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6. a refers to the environmental impact of GHG emissions; b represents the mineral waste disposed or stored; c illustrates the water usage including potable and non-potable water usage. The horizontal coordinate is the year while the vertical coordinate is the related environmental indicators of the global diamond mining industry in the corresponding year. Circles of different sizes indicate emission reductions. Blue (GHG emissions), purple (mineral waste), and grey (water usage) represent the scenarios of the SSP1-1.9, whereas pink (GHG emissions), yellow (mineral waste), and green (water usage) represent the SSP2-2.6. Light and dark colors show the baseline assumption and optimal assumption of lab-grown diamond market shares, respectively.

Discussion

The examination of GHG emissions across different scenarios reveals a consistent trend where emissions remain significantly high through 2030, 2050, and 2100, underscoring the enduring environmental impacts of the diamond industry. In 2030, even under the most optimistic scenarios, GHG emissions are projected to exceed 9 Mt, with the baseline scenario (adapted for lab-grown diamonds under the SSP2-2.6) expected to generate 10.28 Mt of GHG emissions. This trend persists into 2050 and 2100, indicating that emissions will continue to pose a considerable challenge without substantial interventions. By 2050, under the baseline scenario, emissions are expected to increase slightly to 10.76 Mt (the SSP2-2.6) and 9.75 Mt (the SSP1-1.9), with the upside scenarios projecting slightly lower emissions of 8.93 Mt and 8.09 Mt, respectively. The projections extend into 2100, where the BaselineSSP2-2.6 emissions are forecasted at 7.38 Mt, with the BaselineSSP1-1.9 emissions being approximately 2.02 Mt lower. The contrast between the baseline and upside scenarios becomes more pronounced over time, with a notable difference of 5.96 Mt in emissions under the BaselineSSP2-2.6 and the UpsideSSP1-1.9 scenarios. This analysis underscores the critical need for the diamond industry to adopt more sustainable practices. The persistently high GHG emissions levels across all scenarios highlight the industry’s significant carbon footprint.

The assessment of the DEIE model emphasizes the considerable environmental burden posed by the global diamond industry, particularly in terms of mineral waste generation. In 2030, DEIE predictions indicate that the industry could generate 44.94 Mt of mineral waste under the BaselineSSP1-1.9 scenario, with even the minimum scenario, the UpsideSSP2-2.6, expected to produce 40.51 Mt. This waste, often comprising hazardous substances like heavy metals, poses severe risks. Traditionally managed through storage in large ponds or heaps, these waste repositories can lead to catastrophic leaks or breaches, impacting human health, economic stability, and environmental integrity for extended periods. By 2050, the volume of mineral waste is projected to range between 47.13 Mt in the BaselineSSP1-1.9 scenario and 35.41 Mt in the UpsideSSP2-2.6 scenario. A major decline in mineral waste to 11.74 Mt is anticipated by 2100, attributed to the increasing market share of lab-grown diamonds, which suggests an urgent need for innovation and transition towards more sustainable production methods.

Moreover, the diamond industry’s water consumption is also a critical environmental consideration. In 2030, water usage is estimated to be between 7.68 and 8.44 million m³, escalating to nearly 9 million m³ under the BaselineSSP2-2.6 scenario by 2050. By 2100, under optimistic assumptions, water consumption is expected to decrease markedly to 2.99 million m³ (the SSP1-1.9) and 4.12 million m³ (the SSP2-2.6), emphasizing the increasing efficiency and sustainability of diamond production processes over time.

This analysis evaluates the sustainable advantages of lab-grown diamonds, mainly when powered by clean energy sources. The data reveals a consistent increase in the environmental benefits attributed to lab-grown diamonds throughout the observed period. In 2030, the emission reduction potential across all scenarios does not exceed 1.50 Mt, with the UpsideSSP2-2.6 scenario demonstrating the most significant impact by reducing emissions by 1.50 Mt. This trend of emission mitigation continues to grow, with the upside scenario in 2060 exceeding an emission reduction of 3.51 Mt. By the turn of the century, lab-grown diamonds are projected to diminish emissions by as much as 9.58 Mt under the UpsideSSP2-2.6 scenario.

The benefits of lab-grown diamonds extend beyond emission reductions to substantially curtail mineral waste. In 2030, the reduction in mineral waste is anticipated to exceed 35 Mt in the baseline scenario and 60 Mt in the upside scenario. By 2050, the lab-grown diamond industry could potentially reduce mineral waste by over 100 Mt, peaking at a reduction of 169 Mt in the most optimistic scenario. The long-term potential is even more striking, with projections for 2100 showing a reduction in mineral waste of 247.81 Mt (the SSP1-1.9) and 341.33 Mt (the SSP2-2.6) in the baseline scenarios, and an even more substantial decrease to 305.45 Mt (the SSP1-1.9) and 421.06 Mt (the SSP2-2.6) in the most favorable circumstances. This comprehensive analysis emphasizes the substantial environmental benefits that lab-grown diamonds can offer, especially those produced using clean energy. By markedly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mineral waste, lab-grown diamonds present a sustainable alternative that could mitigate the environmental impacts associated with traditional diamond mining.

In the context of water conservation, lab-grown diamonds offer a promising avenue for significant savings. By 2030, it is estimated that the water use efficiency of lab-grown diamonds could result in savings ranging from 5 million m³ to 10 million m³. This figure escalates by 2050 in the UpsideSSP2-2.9 scenario, with a projected saving of 26 Mt of water. Looking ahead to 2100, the scenarios of BaselineSSP2-2.6, UpsideSSP1-1.9, and UpsideSSP2-2.6 all suggest that the water savings attributable to lab-grown diamonds will exceed 10 million m³. These projections highlight the environmental stewardship potential of lab-grown diamonds, not only in terms of reducing mineral waste and conserving land but also in significantly contributing to water conservation. The shift towards lab-grown diamonds represents a forward-thinking approach to sustainable development, with wide-ranging implications for environmental preservation and resource management on a global scale.

The global implications of adopting lab-grown diamonds are important, as evidenced by OECD data (https://data.oecd.org/waste/municipal-waste.htm) comparing the reduction in mineral waste to existing waste management benchmarks. By 2100, the anticipated reduction in mineral waste from the Upside SSP2-2.6 scenario is projected to surpass twice the total municipal waste of China in 2018 (203 Mt) (Qu et al. 2019). This equates to conserving 714 million cubic meters of potential landfill space, which can be translated into tangible benefits for food production and hunger alleviation. Specifically, the freed-up land could support the cultivation of 255 million kilograms of rice, sufficient to feed approximately 436 million individuals, thereby potentially liberating 1.19 million households from the grips of hunger annually.

Lab-grown diamonds offer a sustainable alternative to mined diamonds, aligning with the rising consumer demand for environmentally responsible products (Delgado et al. 2015). Lab-grown diamond is a perfect match for consumers who prioritize green values while still desiring sparkling diamonds (Joy et al. 2012). Despite the appeal of lab-grown diamonds for those valuing sustainability alongside the desire for luxury, their market penetration remains limited. As of 2016, lab-grown diamonds represented a modest 1.7% of the diamond market, with traditional mined diamonds continuing to dominate. This preference for mined diamonds has been linked to a consumer inclination towards traditional production methods, a trend rooted in the symbolic significance of mined diamonds as expressions of love and socio-economic status, often amplified by social media. However, the DEIE framework indicates that increasing the market share of lab-grown diamonds could yield substantial economic and environmental benefits. Overcoming consumer skepticism requires strategic efforts to shift perceptions. Government policies and media campaigns illuminating the environmental and ethical advantages of lab-grown diamonds could play a crucial role in this transition, addressing the underlying causes of production-process conservatism (Ha et al. 2015) and encouraging a broader acceptance of lab-grown diamonds as viable and desirable alternatives.

The shift towards lab-grown diamonds represents an environmental imperative as well as a socio-economic opportunity, especially for regions heavily reliant on diamond mining. While concerns exist that moving away from traditional diamond mining could impact job availability, the reality of the situation in mining regions paints a different picture. In countries like Botswana, where the diamond mining industry is fraught with challenges, the economy is significantly dependent on diamond exports. These include not only the physical risks associated with mining, such as injuries occurring at a notable rate of 0.115 per 100 employees annually, but also the broader social implications, including the abuse of child labor and the limitation of job opportunities in other sectors due to the dominance of mining. This reliance on an industry characterized by unsustainable practices and social risks indicates the necessity for innovation. In light of previous studies, although lab-grown diamonds attract controversy among stakeholders (Coste-Manière and Gardetti, 2021), their production process relies on renewable energy and has the capability to reduce GHG emissions to 0.028 grams per carat, resulting in zero working and environmental incidents (Frost and Sullivan, 2014), as it is an entirely indoor process with infrastructure where the chances of any environmental hazard taking place are non-existent. Transitioning to lab-grown diamonds could mitigate these issues by offering alternative employment opportunities in a new and sustainable sector. This shift has the potential to catalyze industrial innovation, thereby creating jobs that are safer and more sustainable in the long term. Such a transition could alleviate poverty and reduce reliance on an industry that, in its current form, perpetuates a cycle of illness and impoverishment due to its environmental and social impacts.

Under the initiative of the Paris Agreement, various countries are adopting different policies to achieve decarbonization (Ulpiani et al. 2023; Shang et al. 2023). In general, policymakers advocate for industrial transformation and upgrading to a more sustainable sector (He et al. 2012; Xia et al. 2019). However, this usually requires a significant amount of capital investment. Compared to the conventional mining process, laboratory cultivation requires less capital investment. The initial cost of a lab-grown diamond is one-third that of a mined diamond, while the cost of the final product is 42% that of its counterpart (Rrustemi and Tuchschmid, 2020). This phenomenon provides opportunities for suppliers and retailers to gain more profit, along with a greater consumer surplus. The sustainable transformation of the diamond industry requires both effective pollution reduction and the maintenance of its scale in a cost-saving way. Furthermore, this transformation can be viewed as a technological advancement that promotes a greener and more sustainable innovation, with the goal of ensuring that new products, processes, and services improve human well-being without compromising the integrity of the environment’s life support systems (Smith et al. 2010). In conclusion, lab-grown diamonds produced using clean energy can replace natural diamonds, achieving a win-win situation for both the environment and the economy.

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71988101).

Author contributions

Y.S. designed the research topic. Y.S. and S.J. constructed the dataset. Y.S. wrote the manuscript and analyzed the data. S.J. developed the method and discussed the results. S.W. commented on the research design and supervised the work.

Data availability

All data (both row and curated) from the current study are available in the Harvard Dataverse, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DCEANZ.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

1

Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, or cement production within a country’s borders. It does not consider the emissions of traded goods, i.e. consumption-based emissions., which is larger than the total emissions of the local agriculture, transportation, manufacturing & construction, and building sectors in 2019. In addition, the mineral waste generated by the Australian diamond industry under the SSP1-1.9 and the SSP2-2.6 in 2070 is 85.70 Mt and 84.1 Mt, respectively, exceeding Australia’s total core waste and ash generation by material and stream in 2019 (74.07 Mt) (Azadi et al. 2019). The mineral waste of the Russian diamond industry decreased to the lowest level in 2100, which, however, is still higher than the Russian municipal waste.

2

Municipal waste is defined as waste collected and treated by or for municipalities. It covers waste from households, including bulky waste, similar waste from commerce and trade, office buildings, institutions, and small businesses, as well as yard and garden waste, street sweepings, the contents of litter containers, and market cleansing waste if managed as household waste. The definition excludes waste from municipal sewage networks and treatment, as well as waste from construction and demolition activities.

3

According to South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (https://scdhec.gov/environment/land-and-waste-landfills/how-landfills-work), about 1200 to 1400 pounds of garbage waste can be compacted into one cubic yard of space.

4

2.8 m² can grow one kilogram of rice (Poore and Nemecek, 2018).

5

People need 2000 calories of food per day, which is about 585 grams of rice (Snetselaar et al., 2021).

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03195-y.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Alzamora, BR; Barros, RTDV. Review of municipal waste management charging methods in different countries. Waste Manag; 2020; 115, pp. 47-55. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32717551][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.020]

Ashfold, MN; Goss, JP; Green, BL; May, PW; Newton, ME; Peaker, CV. Nitrogen in diamond. Chem Rev; 2020; 120, 12 pp. 5745-5794.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB3cXis1Whtr4%3D] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32048841][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00518]

Azadi, M; Edraki, M; Farhang, F; Ahn, J. Opportunities for mineral carbonation in Australia’s mining industry. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 5 1250.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC1MXisVahtLbE] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11051250]

Bain & Company (2014) Strong origins: current perspectives on the diamond industry. Bain & Company

Cammarano, D; Jamshidi, S; Hoogenboom, G; Ruane, AC; Niyogi, D; Ronga, D. Processing tomato production is expected to decrease by 2050 due to the projected increase in temperature. Nat Food; 2022; 3, 6 pp. 437-444. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37118037][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00521-y]

Chen JM (2021) Carbon neutrality: toward a sustainable future. Innov 2(3):100127

Cheng H (2020) Future earth and sustainable developments. Innov 1(3):100055

Coste-Manière I, Gardetti MA (2021) Sustainable luxury and jewelry. Springer

Cui, C; Guan, D; Wang, D; Meng, J; Chemutai, V; Brenton, P; Zhang, S; Shan, Y; Zhang, Q; Davis, SJ. Global mitigation efforts cannot neglect emerging emitters. Natl Sci Rev; 2022; 9, 12 223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwac223]

Delgado, MS; Harriger, JL; Khanna, N. The value of environmental status signaling. Ecol Econ; 2015; 111, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.021]

Estoque, RC; Ooba, M; Avitabile, V; Hijioka, Y; DasGupta, R; Togawa, T; Murayama, Y. The future of Southeast Asia’s forests. Nat Commun; 2019; 10, 12019NatCo.10.1829E[PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31015425][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478739][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09646-4]

Fan, LS; Constantin, L; Li, DW; Liu, L; Keramatnejad, K; Azina, C; Huang, X; Golgir, HR; Lu, Y; Ahmadi, Z et al. Ultraviolet laser photolysis of hydrocarbons for nondiamond carbon suppression in chemical vapor deposition of diamond films. Light Sci Appl; 2018; 7, 4 pp. 17177-17177.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC1cXnt1aqsLk%3D] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30839522][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6060054][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/lsa.2017.177]

Field, M; Stiefenhofer, J; Robey, J; Kurszlaukis, S. Kimberlite-hosted diamond deposits of southern Africa: a review. Ore Geol Rev; 2008; 34, 1-2 pp. 33-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2007.11.002]

Frank, F; Lang, A; Moore, M. Cavitation as a mechanism for the synthesis of natural diamonds. Nature; 1973; 246, pp. 143-144.1973Natur.246.143F[COI: 1:CAS:528:DyaE2cXosFGrsA%3D%3D] [PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7086498][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/246143a0]

Friedlingstein, P; Jones, MW; O’Sullivan, M; Andrew, RM; Hauck, J; Peters, GP; Peters, W; Pongratz, J; Sitch, S; Le Quéré, C et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst Sci Data; 2019; 11, 4 pp. 1783-1838.2019ESSD..11.1783F[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019]

Friedlingstein, P; O’Sullivan, M; Jones, MW; Andrew, RM; Hauck, J; Olsen, A; Peters, GP; Peters, W; Pongratz, J; Sitch, S et al. Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst Sci Data; 2020; 12, 4 pp. 3269-3340.2020ESSD..12.3269F[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020]

Frost & Sullivan (2014) Environmental impact analysis production of rough diamond. Frost & Sullivan

Gan, Y; Griffin, WM. Analysis of life-cycle GHG emissions for iron ore mining and processing in China—uncertainty and trends. Resour Policy; 2018; 58, pp. 90-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.03.015]

Geels, FW. Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the multi-level perspective. Energy Res Soc Sci; 2018; 37, pp. 224-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.010]

Greve, P; Kahil, T; Mochizuki, J; Schinko, T; Satoh, Y; Burek, P; Fischer, G; Tramberend, S; Burtscher, R; Langan, S et al. Global assessment of water challenges under uncertainty in water scarcity projections. Nat Sustain; 2018; 1, 9 pp. 486-494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0134-9]

Ha JK, Gosline R, Zuckerman E (2015) Can a girl’s best friend be born in a lab?: The role of ritual in the diamond market. In: Academy of Management Proceedings, vol. 2015, p. 13298. Acad Manag Proc

He, G; Lu, Y; Mol, AP; Beckers, T. Changes and challenges: China’s environmental management in transition. Environ Dev; 2012; 3, pp. 25-38.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XhtVSgsLjE] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.05.005]

He, Y; Yang, K; Wild, M; Wang, K; Tong, D; Shao, C; Zhou, T. Constrained future brightening of solar radiation and its implication for China’s solar power. Natl Sci Rev; 2023; 10, 1 242. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwac242]

Hofmann, M; Mathesius, S; Kriegler, E; Vuuren, DV; Schellnhuber, H. Strong time dependence of ocean acidification mitigation by atmospheric carbon dioxide removal. Nat Commun; 2019; 10, 12019NatCo.10.5592H[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC1MXitlyntrbF] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31811135][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6898155][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13586-4]

Jiang WL, Xu HF (2017) Treatment and recycling of the process water in iron ore flotation of Yuanjiacun iron mine. J Chem 2017:9187436

Joy, A; Sherry, JF, Jr; Venkatesh, A; Wang, J; Chan, R. Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fash Theory; 2012; 16, 3 pp. 273-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175174112X13340749707123]

Kim, JR; Kim, DK; Zhu, H; Abbaschian, R. High pressure and high temperature annealing on nitrogen aggregation in lab-grown diamonds. J Mater Sci; 2011; 46, pp. 6264-6272.2011JMatS.46.6264K[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXisVagsLY%3D] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10853-011-5383-1]

Kriegler, E; Edmonds, J; Hallegatte, S; Ebi, KL; Kram, T; Riahi, K; Winkler, H; Van Vuuren, DP. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Clim Change; 2014; 122, pp. 401-414.2014ClCh.122.401K[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0971-5]

Kriegler, E; O’Neill, BC; Hallegatte, S; Kram, T; Lempert, RJ; Moss, RH; Wilbanks, T. The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Glob Environ Change; 2012; 22, 4 pp. 807-822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.005]

Kusin, FM; Awang, NHC; Hasan, SNMS; Rahim, HAA; Azmin, N; Jusop, S; Kim, KW. Geo-ecological evaluation of mineral, major and trace elemental composition in waste rocks, soils and sediments of a gold mining area and potential associated risks. Catena; 2019; 183,[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC1MXhs1GksLjN] [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104229]

Liu, Z; Deng, Z; Davis, SJ; Giron, C; Ciais, P. Monitoring global carbon emissions in 2021. Nat Rev Earth Environ; 2022; 3, 4 pp. 217-219.2022NRvEE..3.217L[PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35340723][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8935618][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00285-w]

Lu, Y; Song, S; Wang, R; Liu, Z; Meng, J; Sweetman, AJ; Jenkins, A; Ferrier, RC; Li, H; Luo, W et al. Impacts of soil and water pollution on food safety and health risks in China. Environ Int; 2015; 77, pp. 5-15.[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXit1CltL4%3D] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25603422][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.12.010]

Maconachie, R; Binns, T. Farming miners’ or ‘mining farmers’?: diamond mining and rural development in post-conflict Sierra Leone. J Rural Stud; 2007; 23, 3 pp. 367-380. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.01.003]

Meyer HO, Seal M (2018) Natural diamond. In: Handbook of Industrial Diamonds and Diamond Films, pp. 481–526. CRC Press, Florida

Mi, Z; Zheng, J; Meng, J; Ou, J; Hubacek, K; Liu, Z; Coffman, D; Stern, N; Liang, S; Wei, YM. Economic development and converging household carbon footprints in China. Nat Sustain; 2020; 3, 7 pp. 529-537. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0504-y]

Northey, SA; Mudd, GM; Werner, TT; Haque, N; Yellishetty, M. Sustainable water management and improved corporate reporting in mining. Water Resour Ind; 2019; 21, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2018.100104]

Oliva, R. Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models. Eur J Oper Res; 2003; 151, 3 pp. 552-568.2003mssg.book...OMathSciNet ID: 2004234[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00622-7]

Pan, X; Elzen, M; Höhne, N; Teng, F; Wang, L. Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environ Sci Policy; 2017; 74, pp. 49-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.020]

Pereira, B; Teah, K; Sung, B; Teah, M. Building blocks of the luxury jewellery industry: conversations with a CEO. Asia Pac J Mark Logist; 2019; 31, 4 pp. 817-829. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2018-0415]

Pickin, J; Wardle, C; O’Farrell, K; Nyunt, P; Donovan, S. National waste report 2020; 2020; Docklands, Australia, Blue Environment Pty Ltd.: pp. 1-156.

Poore, J; Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science; 2018; 360, 6392 pp. 987-992.2018Sci..360.987P[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC1cXhtVags77L] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29853680][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216]

Purohit, P; Borgford-Parnell, N; Klimont, Z; Höglund-Isaksson, L. Achieving Paris climate goals calls for increasing ambition of the Kigali amendment. Nat Clim Change; 2022; 12, 4 pp. 339-342.2022NatCC.12.339P[DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01310-y]

Qu, J; Wang, H; Wang, K; Yu, G; Ke, B; Yu, HQ; Ren, H; Zheng, X; Li, J; Li, WW et al. Municipal wastewater treatment in China: Development history and future perspectives. Front Environ Sci Eng; 2019; 13, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11783-019-1172-x]

Rogelj, J; Den Elzen, M; Höhne, N; Fransen, T; Fekete, H; Winkler, H; Schaeffer, R; Sha, F; Riahi, K; Meinshausen, M. Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature; 2016; 534, 7609 pp. 631-639.2016Natur.534.631R[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC28Xht1Gju7vI] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27357792][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature18307]

Rrustemi, J; Tuchschmid, NS. Fundraising campaigns in a digital economy: lessons from a Swiss synthetic diamond venture’s initial coin offering (ICO). Technol Innov Manag Rev; 2020; 10, 6 pp. 53-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1368]

Sardain, A; Sardain, E; Leung, B. Global forecasts of shipping traffic and biological invasions to 2050. Nat Sustain; 2019; 2, 4 pp. 274-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0245-y]

Senthilkumar, K; Mollier, A; Delmas, M; Pellerin, S; Nesme, T. Phosphorus recovery and recycling from waste: an appraisal based on a French case study. Resour Conserv Recycl; 2014; 87, pp. 97-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.005]

Shang, Y; Bi, C; Wei, X; Jiang, D; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F; Rasoulinezhad, E. Eco-tourism, climate change, and environmental policies: empirical evidence from developing economies. Humanit Soc Sci Commun; 2023; 10, 1 pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01777-w]

Smith, A; Voß, JP; Grin, J. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res Policy; 2010; 39, 4 pp. 435-448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023]

Snetselaar, LG; Jesus, JM; DeSilva, DM; Stoody, EE. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025: understanding the scientific process, guidelines, and key recommendations. Nutr Today; 2021; 56, 6 287. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34987271][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8713704][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000512]

Sonter, LJ; Dade, MC; Watson, JE; Valenta, RK. Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity. Nat Commun; 2020; 11, 1 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17928-5]

Sonter, LJ; Herrera, D; Barrett, DJ; Galford, GL; Moran, CJ; Soares-Filho, BS. Mining drives extensive deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Commun; 2017; 8, 12017NatCo..8.1013S[PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29044104][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647322][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00557-w]

Stegmann, P; Daioglou, V; Londo, M; Vuuren, DP; Junginger, M. Plastic futures and their CO₂ emissions. Nature; 2022; 612, 7939 pp. 272-276.2022Natur.612.272S[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB38XjtVKhtLrM] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36477132][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5]

Summers, HD; Rees, P; Holton, MD; Brown, MR; Chappell, SC; Smith, PJ; Errington, RJ. Statistical analysis of nanoparticle dosing in a dynamic cellular system. Nat Nanotechnol; 2011; 6, 3 pp. 170-174.2011NatNa..6.170S[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3MXislCjsrk%3D] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21258333][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2010.277]

Tang, R; Zhao, J; Liu, Y; Huang, X; Zhang, Y; Zhou, D; Ding, A; Nielsen, CP; Wang, H. Air quality and health co-benefits of China’s carbon dioxide emissions peaking before 2030. Nat Commun; 2022; 13, 12022NatCo.13.1008T[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB38XkvFSrt7g%3D] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35197466][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8866434][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28672-3]

Tatiya, RR. Surface and underground excavations: methods, techniques and equipment; 2005; Florida, CRC Press: [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781439834220]

Tugov, A. Prospects for the use of municipal solid wastes as secondary energy resources in Russia. Therm Eng; 2013; 60, pp. 663-668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0040601513090139]

Ulpiani, G; Rebolledo, E; Vetters, N; Florio, P; Bertoldi, P. Funding and financing the zero emissions journey: Urban visions from the 100 climate-neutral and smart cities mission. Humanit Soc Sci Commun; 2023; 10, 1 pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02055-5]

Wang, F; Harindintwali, JD; Yuan, Z; Wang, M; Wang, F; Li, S; Yin, Z; Huang, L; Fu, Y; Li, L et al. Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality. Innov; 2021; 2, 4[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB38XitVemt7bP]

Wang, Z; Zhang, B; Guan, D. Take responsibility for electronic-waste disposal. Nature; 2016; 536, 7614 pp. 23-25.2016Natur.536..23W[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC28Xht12jur3F] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27488785][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/536023a]

Xia, Y; Wang, H; Liu, W. The indirect carbon emission from household consumption in China between 1995–2009 and 2010–2030: a decomposition and prediction analysis. Comput Ind Eng; 2019; 128, pp. 264-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.031]

Yang, H; Huang, X; Westervelt, DM; Horowitz, L; Peng, W. Socio-demographic factors shaping the future global health burden from air pollution. Nat Sustain; 2023; 6, 1 pp. 58-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00976-8]

Yellishetty, M; Karpe, V; Reddy, E; Subhash, K; Ranjith, PG. Reuse of iron ore mineral wastes in civil engineering constructions: A case study. Resour Conserv Recycl; 2008; 52, 11 pp. 1283-1289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.07.007]

Zeng, Z; Wen, J; Lou, H; Zhang, X; Yang, L; Tan, L; Cheng, B; Zuo, X; Yang, W; Mao, WL et al. Preservation of high-pressure volatiles in nanostructured diamond capsules. Nature; 2022; 608, 7923 pp. 513-517.2022Natur.608.513Z[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB38XitFGlsrfK] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35978124][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04955-z]

Zhang, H; Liang, S; Wu, K; Qiu, YL; Cai, Y; Chan, G; Wang, S; Zhou, D; Zhou, Y; Li, Z. Using agrophotovoltaics to reduce carbon emissions and global rural poverty. Innov; 2022; 3, 6[COI: 1:CAS:528:DC%2BB38XisFyrs7jJ]

Zhang, S; Huang, G; Zhang, Y; Lv, X; Wan, K; Liang, J; Feng, Y; Dao, J; Wu, S; Zhang, L et al. Sustained productivity and agronomic potential of perennial rice. Nat Sustain; 2023; 6, 1 pp. 28-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00997-3]