company:general electric

  • Beyond the Hype of Lab-Grown Diamonds
    https://earther.gizmodo.com/beyond-the-hype-of-lab-grown-diamonds-1834890351

    Billions of years ago when the world was still young, treasure began forming deep underground. As the edges of Earth’s tectonic plates plunged down into the upper mantle, bits of carbon, some likely hailing from long-dead life forms were melted and compressed into rigid lattices. Over millions of years, those lattices grew into the most durable, dazzling gems the planet had ever cooked up. And every so often, for reasons scientists still don’t fully understand, an eruption would send a stash of these stones rocketing to the surface inside a bubbly magma known as kimberlite.

    There, the diamonds would remain, nestled in the kimberlite volcanoes that delivered them from their fiery home, until humans evolved, learned of their existence, and began to dig them up.

    The epic origin of Earth’s diamonds has helped fuel a powerful marketing mythology around them: that they are objects of otherworldly strength and beauty; fitting symbols of eternal love. But while “diamonds are forever” may be the catchiest advertising slogan ever to bear some geologic truth, the supply of these stones in the Earth’s crust, in places we can readily reach them, is far from everlasting. And the scars we’ve inflicted on the land and ourselves in order to mine diamonds has cast a shadow that still lingers over the industry.

    Some diamond seekers, however, say we don’t need to scour the Earth any longer, because science now offers an alternative: diamonds grown in labs. These gems aren’t simulants or synthetic substitutes; they are optically, chemically, and physically identical to their Earth-mined counterparts. They’re also cheaper, and in theory, limitless. The arrival of lab-grown diamonds has rocked the jewelry world to its core and prompted fierce pushback from diamond miners. Claims abound on both sides.

    Growers often say that their diamonds are sustainable and ethical; miners and their industry allies counter that only gems plucked from the Earth can be considered “real” or “precious.” Some of these assertions are subjective, others are supported only by sparse, self-reported, or industry-backed data. But that’s not stopping everyone from making them.

    This is a fight over image, and when it comes to diamonds, image is everything.
    A variety of cut, polished Ada Diamonds created in a lab, including smaller melee stones and large center stones. 22.94 carats total. (2.60 ct. pear, 2.01 ct. asscher, 2.23 ct. cushion, 3.01 ct. radiant, 1.74 ct. princess, 2.11 ct. emerald, 3.11 ct. heart, 3.00 ct. oval, 3.13 ct. round.)
    Image: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    Same, but different

    The dream of lab-grown diamond dates back over a century. In 1911, science fiction author H.G. Wells described what would essentially become one of the key methods for making diamond—recreating the conditions inside Earth’s mantle on its surface—in his short story The Diamond Maker. As the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) notes, there were a handful of dubious attempts to create diamonds in labs in the late 19th and early 20th century, but the first commercial diamond production wouldn’t emerge until the mid-1950s, when scientists with General Electric worked out a method for creating small, brown stones. Others, including De Beers, soon developed their own methods for synthesizing the gems, and use of the lab-created diamond in industrial applications, from cutting tools to high power electronics, took off.

    According to the GIA’s James Shigley, the first experimental production of gem-quality diamond occurred in 1970. Yet by the early 2000s, gem-quality stones were still small, and often tinted yellow with impurities. It was only in the last five or so years that methods for growing diamonds advanced to the point that producers began churning out large, colorless stones consistently. That’s when the jewelry sector began to take a real interest.

    Today, that sector is taking off. The International Grown Diamond Association (IGDA), a trade group formed in 2016 by a dozen lab diamond growers and sellers, now has about 50 members, according to IGDA secretary general Dick Garard. When the IGDA first formed, lab-grown diamonds were estimated to represent about 1 percent of a $14 billion rough diamond market. This year, industry analyst Paul Zimnisky estimates they account for 2-3 percent of the market.

    He expects that share will only continue to grow as factories in China that already produce millions of carats a year for industrial purposes start to see an opportunity in jewelry.
    “I have a real problem with people claiming one is ethical and another is not.”

    “This year some [factories] will come up from 100,000 gem-quality diamonds to one to two million,” Zimnisky said. “They already have the infrastructure and equipment in place” and are in the process of upgrading it. (About 150 million carats of diamonds were mined last year, according to a global analysis of the industry conducted by Bain & Company.)

    Production ramp-up aside, 2018 saw some other major developments across the industry. In the summer, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reversed decades of guidance when it expanded the definition of a diamond to include those created in labs and dropped ‘synthetic’ as a recommended descriptor for lab-grown stones. The decision came on the heels of the world’s top diamond producer, De Beers, announcing the launch of its own lab-grown diamond line, Lightbox, after having once vowed never to sell man-made stones as jewelry.

    “I would say shock,” Lightbox Chief Marketing Officer Sally Morrison told Earther when asked how the jewelry world responded to the company’s launch.

    While the majority of lab-grown diamonds on the market today are what’s known as melee (less than 0.18 carats), the tech for producing the biggest, most dazzling diamonds continues to improve. In 2016, lab-grown diamond company MiaDonna announced its partners had grown a 6.28 carat gem-quality diamond, claimed to be the largest created in the U.S. to that point. In 2017, a lab in Augsburg University, Germany that grows diamonds for industrial and scientific research applications produced what is thought to be the largest lab-grown diamond ever—a 155 carat behemoth that stretches nearly 4 inches across. Not gem quality, perhaps, but still impressive.

    “If you compare it with the Queen’s diamond, hers is four times heavier, it’s clearer” physicist Matthias Schreck, who leads the group that grew that beast of a jewel, told me. “But in area, our diamond is bigger. We were very proud of this.”

    Diamonds can be created in one of two ways: Similar to how they form inside the Earth, or similar to how scientists speculate they might form in outer space.

    The older, Earth-inspired method is known as “high temperature high pressure” (HPHT), and that’s exactly what it sounds like. A carbon source, like graphite, is placed in a giant, mechanical press where, in the presence of a catalyst, it’s subjected to temperatures of around 1,600 degrees Celsius and pressures of 5-6 Gigapascals in order to form diamond. (If you’re curious what that sort of pressure feels like, the GIA describes it as similar to the force exerted if you tried to balance a commercial jet on your fingertip.)

    The newer method, called chemical vapor deposition (CVD), is more akin to how diamonds might form in interstellar gas clouds (for which we have indirect, spectroscopic evidence, according to Shigley). A hydrocarbon gas, like methane, is pumped into a low-pressure reactor vessel alongside hydrogen. While maintaining near-vacuum conditions, the gases are heated very hot—typically 3,000 to 4,000 degrees Celsius, according to Lightbox CEO Steve Coe—causing carbon atoms to break free of their molecular bonds. Under the right conditions, those liberated bits of carbon will settle out onto a substrate—typically a flat, square plate of a synthetic diamond produced with the HPHT method—forming layer upon layer of diamond.

    “It’s like snow falling on a table on your back porch,” Jason Payne, the founder and CEO of lab-grown diamond jewelry company Ada Diamonds, told me.

    Scientists have been forging gem-quality diamonds with HPHT for longer, but today, CVD has become the method of choice for those selling larger bridal stones. That’s in part because it’s easier to control impurities and make diamonds with very high clarity, according to Coe. Still, each method has its advantages—Payne said that HPHT is faster and the diamonds typically have better color (which is to say, less of it)—and some companies, like Ada, purchase stones grown in both ways.

    However they’re made, lab-grown diamonds have the same exceptional hardness, stiffness, and thermal conductivity as their Earth-mined counterparts. Cut, they can dazzle with the same brilliance and fire—a technical term to describe how well the diamond scatters light like a prism. The GIA even grades them according to the same 4Cs—cut, clarity, color, and carat—that gemologists use to assess diamonds formed in the Earth, although it uses a slightly different terminology to report the color and clarity grades for lab-grown stones.

    They’re so similar, in fact, that lab-grown diamond entering the larger diamond supply without any disclosures has become a major concern across the jewelry industry, particularly when it comes to melee stones from Asia. It’s something major retailers are now investing thousands of dollars in sophisticated detection equipment to suss out by searching for minute differences in, say, their crystal shape or for impurities like nitrogen (much less common in lab-grown diamond, according to Shigley).

    Those differences may be a lifeline for retailers hoping to weed out lab-grown diamonds, but for companies focused on them, they can become another selling point. The lack of nitrogen in diamonds produced with the CVD method, for instance, gives them an exceptional chemical purity that allows them to be classified as type IIa; a rare and coveted breed that accounts for just 2 percent of those found in nature. Meanwhile, the ability to control everything about the growth process allows companies like Lightbox to adjust the formula and produce incredibly rare blue and pink diamonds as part of their standard product line. (In fact, these colored gemstones have made up over half of the company’s sales since launch, according to Coe.)

    And while lab-grown diamonds boast the same sparkle as their Earthly counterparts, they do so at a significant discount. Zimnisky said that today, your typical one carat, medium quality diamond grown in a lab will sell for about $3,600, compared with $6,100 for its Earth-mined counterpart—a discount of about 40 percent. Two years ago, that discount was only 18 percent. And while the price drop has “slightly tapered off” as Zimnisky put it, he expects it will fall further thanks in part to the aforementioned ramp up in Chinese production, as well as technological improvements. (The market is also shifting in response to Lightbox, which De Beers is using to position lab-grown diamonds as mass produced items for fashion jewelry, and which is selling its stones, ungraded, at the controversial low price of $800 per carat—a discount of nearly 90 percent.)

    Zimnisky said that if the price falls too fast, it could devalue lab-grown diamonds in the eyes of consumers. But for now, at least, paying less seems to be a selling point. A 2018 consumer research survey by MVI Marketing found that most of those polled would choose a larger lab-grown diamond over a smaller mined diamond of the same price.

    “The thing [consumers] seem most compelled by is the ability to trade up in size and quality at the same price,” Garard of IGDA said.

    Still, for buyers and sellers alike, price is only part of the story. Many in the lab-grown diamond world market their product as an ethical or eco-friendly alternative to mined diamonds.

    But those sales pitches aren’t without controversy.
    A variety of lab-grown diamond products arrayed on a desk at Ada Diamonds showroom in Manhattan. The stone in the upper left gets its blue color from boron. Diamonds tinted yellow (top center) usually get their color from small amounts of nitrogen.
    Photo: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    Dazzling promises

    As Anna-Mieke Anderson tells it, she didn’t enter the diamond world to become a corporate tycoon. She did it to try and fix a mistake.

    In 1999, Anderson purchased herself a diamond. Some years later, in 2005, her father asked her where it came from. Nonplussed, she told him it came from the jewelry store. But that wasn’t what he was asking: He wanted to know where it really came from.

    “I actually had no idea,” Anderson told Earther. “That led me to do a mountain of research.”

    That research eventually led Anderson to conclude that she had likely bought a diamond mined under horrific conditions. She couldn’t be sure, because the certificate of purchase included no place of origin. But around the time of her purchase, civil wars funded by diamond mining were raging across Angola, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia, fueling “widespread devastation” as Global Witness put it in 2006. At the height of the diamond wars in the late ‘90s, the watchdog group estimates that as many as 15 percent of diamonds entering the market were conflict diamonds. Even those that weren’t actively fueling a war were often being mined in dirty, hazardous conditions; sometimes by children.

    “I couldn’t believe I’d bought into this,” Anderson said.

    To try and set things right, Anderson began sponsoring a boy living in a Liberian community impacted by the blood diamond trade. The experience was so eye-opening, she says, that she eventually felt compelled to sponsor more children. Selling conflict-free jewelry seemed like a fitting way to raise money to do so, but after a great deal more research, Anderson decided she couldn’t in good faith consider any diamond pulled from the Earth to be truly conflict-free in either the humanitarian or environmental sense. While diamond miners were, by the early 2000s, getting their gems certified “conflict free” according to the UN-backed Kimberley Process, the certification scheme’s definition of a conflict diamond—one sold by rebel groups to finance armed conflicts against governments—felt far too narrow.

    “That [conflict definition] eliminates anything to do with the environment, or eliminates a child mining it, or someone who was a slave, or beaten, or raped,” Anderson said.

    And so she started looking into science, and in 2007, launching MiaDonna as one of the world’s first lab-grown diamond jewelry companies. The business has been activism-oriented from the get-go, with at least five percent of its annual earnings—and more than 20 percent for the last three years—going into The Greener Diamond, Anderson’s charity foundation which has funded a wide range of projects, from training former child soldiers in Sierra Leone to grow food to sponsoring kids orphaned by the West African Ebola outbreak.

    MiaDonna isn’t the only company that positions itself as an ethical alternative to the traditional diamond industry. Brilliant Earth, which sells what it says are carefully-sourced mined and lab-created diamonds, also donates a small portion of its profits to supporting mining communities. Other lab-grown diamond companies market themselves as “ethical,” “conflict-free,” or “world positive.” Payne of Ada Diamonds sees, in lab-grown diamonds, not just shiny baubles, but a potential to improve medicine, clean up pollution, and advance society in countless other ways—and he thinks the growing interest in lab-grown diamond jewelry will help propel us toward that future.

    Others, however, say black-and-white characterizations when it comes to social impact of mined diamonds versus lab-grown stones are unfair. “I have a real problem with people claiming one is ethical and another is not,” Estelle Levin-Nally, founder and CEO of Levin Sources, which advocates for better governance in the mining sector, told Earther. “I think it’s always about your politics. And ethics are subjective.”

    Saleem Ali, an environmental researcher at the University of Delaware who serves on the board of the Diamonds and Development Initiative, agrees. He says the mining industry has, on the whole, worked hard to turn itself around since the height of the diamond wars and that governance is “much better today” than it used to be. Human rights watchdog Global Witness also says that “significant progress” has been made to curb the conflict diamond trade, although as Alice Harle, Senior Campaigner with Global Witness told Earther via email, diamonds do still fuel conflict, particularly in the Central African Republic and Zimbabwe.

    Most industry observers seems to agree that the Kimberley Process is outdated and inadequate, and that more work is needed to stamp out other abuses, including child labor and forced labor, in the artisanal and small-scale diamond mining sector. Today, large-scale mining operations don’t tend to see these kinds of problems, according to Julianne Kippenberg, associate director for children’s rights at Human Rights Watch, but she notes that there may be other community impacts surrounding land rights and forced resettlement.

    The flip side, Ali and Levin-Nally say, is that well-regulated mining operations can be an important source of economic development and livelihood. Ali cites Botswana and Russia as prime examples of places where large-scale mining operations have become “major contributors to the economy.” Dmitry Amelkin, head of strategic projects and analytics for Russian diamond mining giant Alrosa, echoed that sentiment in an email to Earther, noting that diamonds transformed Botswana “from one of the poorest [countries] in the world to a middle-income country” with revenues from mining representing almost a third of its GDP.

    In May, a report commissioned by the Diamond Producers Association (DPA), a trade organization representing the world’s largest diamond mining companies, estimated that worldwide, its members generate nearly $4 billion in direct revenue for employees and contractors, along with another $6.8 billion in benefits via “local procurement of goods and services.” DPA CEO Jean-Marc Lieberherr said this was a story diamond miners need to do a better job telling.

    “The industry has undergone such changes since the Blood Diamond movie,” he said, referring to the blockbuster 2006 film starring Leonardo DiCaprio that drew global attention to the problem of conflict diamonds. “And yet people’s’ perceptions haven’t evolved. I think the main reason is we have not had a voice, we haven’t communicated.”

    But conflict and human rights abuses aren’t the only issues that have plagued the diamond industry. There’s also the lasting environmental impact of the mining itself. In the case of large-scale commercial mines, this typically entails using heavy machinery and explosives to bore deep into those kimberlite tubes in search of precious stones.

    Some, like Maya Koplyova, a geologist at the University of British Columbia who studies diamonds and the rocks they’re found in, see this as far better than many other forms of mining. “The environmental footprint is the fThere’s also the question of just how representative the report’s energy consumption estimates for lab-grown diamonds are. While he wouldn’t offer a specific number, Coe said that De Beers’ Group diamond manufacturer Element Six—arguably the most advanced laboratory-grown diamond company in the world—has “substantially lower” per carat energy requirements than the headline figures found inside the new report. When asked why this was not included, Rick Lord, ESG analyst at Trucost, the S&P global group that conducted the analysis, said it chose to focus on energy estimates in the public record, but that after private consultation with Element Six it did not believe their data would “materially alter” the emissions estimates in the study.

    Finally, it’s important to consider the source of the carbon emissions. While the new report states that about 40 percent of the emissions associated with mining a diamond come from fossil fuel-powered vehicles and equipment, emissions associated with growing a diamond come mainly from electric power. Today, about 68 percent of lab-grown diamonds hail from China, Singapore, and India combined according to Zimnisky, where the power is drawn from largely fossil fuel-powered grids. But there is, at least, an opportunity to switch to renewables and drive that carbon footprint way down.
    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption.”

    And some companies do seem to be trying to do that. Anderson of MiaDonna says the company only sources its diamonds from facilities in the U.S., and that it’s increasingly trying to work with producers that use renewable energy. Lab-grown diamond company Diamond Foundry grows its stones inside plasma reactors running “as hot as the outer layer of the sun,” per its website, and while it wouldn’t offer any specific numbers, that presumably uses more energy than your typical operation running at lower temperatures. However, company spokesperson Ye-Hui Goldenson said its Washington State ‘megacarat factory’ was cited near a well-maintained hydropower source so that the diamonds could be produced with renewable energy. The company offsets other fossil fuel-driven parts of its operation by purchasing carbon credits.

    Lightbox’s diamonds currently come from Element Six’s UK-based facilities. The company is, however, building a $94-million facility near Portland, Oregon, that’s expected to come online by 2020. Coe said he estimates about 45 percent of its power will come from renewable sources.

    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption,” Coe said. “That’s something we’re focused on in Lightbox.”

    In spite of that, Lightbox is somewhat notable among lab-grown diamond jewelry brands in that, in the words of Morrison, it is “not claiming this to be an eco-friendly product.”

    “While it is true that we don’t dig holes in the ground, the energy consumption is not insignificant,” Morrison told Earther. “And I think we felt very uncomfortable promoting on that.”
    Various diamonds created in a lab, as seen at the Ada Diamonds showroom in Manhattan.
    Photo: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    The real real

    The fight over how lab-grown diamonds can and should market themselves is still heating up.

    On March 26, the FTC sent letters to eight lab-grown and diamond simulant companies warning them against making unsubstantiated assertions about the environmental benefits of their products—its first real enforcement action after updating its jewelry guides last year. The letters, first obtained by JCK news director Rob Bates under a Freedom of Information Act request, also warned companies that their advertising could falsely imply the products are mined diamonds, illustrating that, even though the agency now says a lab-grown diamond is a diamond, the specific origin remains critically important. A letter to Diamond Foundry, for instance, notes that the company has at times advertised its stones as “above-ground real” without the qualification of “laboratory-made.” It’s easy to see how a consumer might miss the implication.

    But in a sense, that’s what all of this is: A fight over what’s real.
    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in. They are a type of diamond.”

    Another letter, sent to FTC attorney Reenah Kim by the nonprofit trade organization Jewelers Vigilance Committee on April 2, makes it clear that many in the industry still believe that’s a term that should be reserved exclusively for gems formed inside the Earth. The letter, obtained by Earther under FOIA, urges the agency to continue restricting the use of the terms “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” and “semi-precious” to Earth-mined diamonds and gemstones. Even the use of such terms in conjunction with “laboratory grown,” the letter argues, “will create even more confusion in an already confused and evolving marketplace.”

    JVC President Tiffany Stevens told Earther that the letter was a response to a footnote in an explanatory document about the FTC’s recent jewelry guide changes, which suggested the agency was considering removing a clause about real, precious, natural and genuine only being acceptable modifiers for gems mined from the Earth.

    “We felt that given the current commercial environment, that we didn’t think it was a good time to take that next step,” Stevens told Earther. As Stevens put it, the changes the FTC recently made, including expanding the definition of diamond and tweaking the descriptors companies can use to label laboratory-grown diamonds as such, have already been “wildly misinterpreted” by some lab-grown diamond sellers that are no longer making the “necessary disclosures.”

    Asked whether the JVC thinks lab-grown diamonds are, in fact, real diamonds, Stevens demurred.

    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in,” she said. “They are a type of diamond.”

    Change is afoot in the diamond world. Mined diamond production may have already peaked, according to the 2018 Bain & Company report. Lab diamonds are here to stay, although where they’re going isn’t entirely clear. Zimnisky expects that in a few years—as Lightbox’s new facility comes online and mass production of lab diamonds continues to ramp up overseas—the price industry-wide will fall to about 80 percent less than a mined diamond. At that point, he wonders whether lab-grown diamonds will start to lose their sparkle.

    Payne isn’t too worried about a price slide, which he says is happening across the diamond industry and which he expects will be “linear, not exponential” on the lab-grown side. He points out that lab-grown diamond market is still limited by supply, and that the largest lab-grown gems remain quite rare. Payne and Zimnisky both see the lab-grown diamond market bifurcating into cheaper, mass-produced gems and premium-quality stones sold by those that can maintain a strong brand. A sense that they’re selling something authentic and, well, real.

    “So much has to do with consumer psychology,” Zimnisky said.

    Some will only ever see diamonds as authentic if they formed inside the Earth. They’re drawn, as Kathryn Money, vice president of strategy and merchandising at Brilliant Earth put it, to “the history and romanticism” of diamonds; to a feeling that’s sparked by holding a piece of our ancient world. To an essence more than a function.

    Others, like Anderson, see lab-grown diamonds as the natural (to use a loaded word) evolution of diamond. “We’re actually running out of [mined] diamonds,” she said. “There is an end in sight.” Payne agreed, describing what he sees as a “looming death spiral” for diamond mining.

    Mined diamonds will never go away. We’ve been digging them up since antiquity, and they never seem to lose their sparkle. But most major mines are being exhausted. And with technology making it easier to grow diamonds just as they are getting more difficult to extract from the Earth, the lab-grown diamond industry’s grandstanding about its future doesn’t feel entirely unreasonable.

    There’s a reason why, as Payne said, “the mining industry as a whole is still quite scared of this product.” ootprint of digging the hole in the ground and crushing [the rock],” Koplyova said, noting that there’s no need to add strong acids or heavy metals like arsenic (used in gold mining) to liberate the gems.

    Still, those holes can be enormous. The Mir Mine, a now-abandoned open pit mine in Eastern Siberia, is so large—reportedly stretching 3,900 feet across and 1,700 feet deep—that the Russian government has declared it a no-fly zone owing to the pit’s ability to create dangerous air currents. It’s visible from space.

    While companies will often rehabilitate other land to offset the impact of mines, kimberlite mining itself typically leaves “a permanent dent in the earth’s surface,” as a 2014 report by market research company Frost & Sullivan put it.

    “It’s a huge impact as far as I’m concerned,” said Kevin Krajick, senior editor for science news at Columbia University’s Earth Institute who wrote a book on the discovery of diamonds in far northern Canada. Krajick noted that in remote mines, like those of the far north, it’s not just the physical hole to consider, but all the development required to reach a previously-untouched area, including roads and airstrips, roaring jets and diesel-powered trucks.

    Diamonds grown in factories clearly have a smaller physical footprint. According to the Frost & Sullivan report, they also use less water and create less waste. It’s for these reasons that Ali thinks diamond mining “will never be able to compete” with lab-grown diamonds from an environmental perspective.

    “The mining industry should not even by trying to do that,” he said.

    Of course, this is capitalism, so try to compete is exactly what the DPA is now doing. That same recent report that touted the mining industry’s economic benefits also asserts that mined diamonds have a carbon footprint three times lower than that of lab-grown diamonds, on average. The numbers behind that conclusion, however, don’t tell the full story.

    Growing diamonds does take considerable energy. The exact amount can vary greatly, however, depending on the specific nature of the growth process. These are details manufacturers are typically loathe to disclose, but Payne of Ada Diamonds says he estimates the most efficient players in the game today use about 250 kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity per cut, polished carat of diamond; roughly what a U.S. household consumes in 9 days. Other estimates run higher. Citing unnamed sources, industry publication JCK Online reported that a modern HPHT run can use up to 700 kWh per carat, while CVD production can clock in north of 1,000 kWh per carat.

    Pulling these and several other public-record estimates, along with information on where in the world today’s lab diamonds are being grown and the energy mix powering the producer nations’ electric grids, the DPA-commissioned study estimated that your typical lab-grown diamond results in some 511 kg of carbon emissions per cut, polished carat. Using information provided by mining companies on fuel and electricity consumption, along with other greenhouse gas sources on the mine site, it found that the average mined carat was responsible for just 160 kg of carbon emissions.

    One limitation here is that the carbon footprint estimate for mining focused only on diamond production, not the years of work entailed in developing a mine. As Ali noted, developing a mine can take a lot of energy, particularly for those sited in remote locales where equipment needs to be hauled long distances by trucks or aircraft.

    There’s also the question of just how representative the report’s energy consumption estimates for lab-grown diamonds are. While he wouldn’t offer a specific number, Coe said that De Beers’ Group diamond manufacturer Element Six—arguably the most advanced laboratory-grown diamond company in the world—has “substantially lower” per carat energy requirements than the headline figures found inside the new report. When asked why this was not included, Rick Lord, ESG analyst at Trucost, the S&P global group that conducted the analysis, said it chose to focus on energy estimates in the public record, but that after private consultation with Element Six it did not believe their data would “materially alter” the emissions estimates in the study.

    Finally, it’s important to consider the source of the carbon emissions. While the new report states that about 40 percent of the emissions associated with mining a diamond come from fossil fuel-powered vehicles and equipment, emissions associated with growing a diamond come mainly from electric power. Today, about 68 percent of lab-grown diamonds hail from China, Singapore, and India combined according to Zimnisky, where the power is drawn from largely fossil fuel-powered grids. But there is, at least, an opportunity to switch to renewables and drive that carbon footprint way down.
    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption.”

    And some companies do seem to be trying to do that. Anderson of MiaDonna says the company only sources its diamonds from facilities in the U.S., and that it’s increasingly trying to work with producers that use renewable energy. Lab-grown diamond company Diamond Foundry grows its stones inside plasma reactors running “as hot as the outer layer of the sun,” per its website, and while it wouldn’t offer any specific numbers, that presumably uses more energy than your typical operation running at lower temperatures. However, company spokesperson Ye-Hui Goldenson said its Washington State ‘megacarat factory’ was cited near a well-maintained hydropower source so that the diamonds could be produced with renewable energy. The company offsets other fossil fuel-driven parts of its operation by purchasing carbon credits.

    Lightbox’s diamonds currently come from Element Six’s UK-based facilities. The company is, however, building a $94-million facility near Portland, Oregon, that’s expected to come online by 2020. Coe said he estimates about 45 percent of its power will come from renewable sources.

    “The reality is both mining and manufacturing consume energy and probably the best thing we could do is focus on reducing energy consumption,” Coe said. “That’s something we’re focused on in Lightbox.”

    In spite of that, Lightbox is somewhat notable among lab-grown diamond jewelry brands in that, in the words of Morrison, it is “not claiming this to be an eco-friendly product.”

    “While it is true that we don’t dig holes in the ground, the energy consumption is not insignificant,” Morrison told Earther. “And I think we felt very uncomfortable promoting on that.”
    Various diamonds created in a lab, as seen at the Ada Diamonds showroom in Manhattan.
    Photo: Sam Cannon (Earther)
    The real real

    The fight over how lab-grown diamonds can and should market themselves is still heating up.

    On March 26, the FTC sent letters to eight lab-grown and diamond simulant companies warning them against making unsubstantiated assertions about the environmental benefits of their products—its first real enforcement action after updating its jewelry guides last year. The letters, first obtained by JCK news director Rob Bates under a Freedom of Information Act request, also warned companies that their advertising could falsely imply the products are mined diamonds, illustrating that, even though the agency now says a lab-grown diamond is a diamond, the specific origin remains critically important. A letter to Diamond Foundry, for instance, notes that the company has at times advertised its stones as “above-ground real” without the qualification of “laboratory-made.” It’s easy to see how a consumer might miss the implication.

    But in a sense, that’s what all of this is: A fight over what’s real.
    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in. They are a type of diamond.”

    Another letter, sent to FTC attorney Reenah Kim by the nonprofit trade organization Jewelers Vigilance Committee on April 2, makes it clear that many in the industry still believe that’s a term that should be reserved exclusively for gems formed inside the Earth. The letter, obtained by Earther under FOIA, urges the agency to continue restricting the use of the terms “real,” “genuine,” “natural,” “precious,” and “semi-precious” to Earth-mined diamonds and gemstones. Even the use of such terms in conjunction with “laboratory grown,” the letter argues, “will create even more confusion in an already confused and evolving marketplace.”

    JVC President Tiffany Stevens told Earther that the letter was a response to a footnote in an explanatory document about the FTC’s recent jewelry guide changes, which suggested the agency was considering removing a clause about real, precious, natural and genuine only being acceptable modifiers for gems mined from the Earth.

    “We felt that given the current commercial environment, that we didn’t think it was a good time to take that next step,” Stevens told Earther. As Stevens put it, the changes the FTC recently made, including expanding the definition of diamond and tweaking the descriptors companies can use to label laboratory-grown diamonds as such, have already been “wildly misinterpreted” by some lab-grown diamond sellers that are no longer making the “necessary disclosures.”

    Asked whether the JVC thinks lab-grown diamonds are, in fact, real diamonds, Stevens demurred.

    “It’s a nuanced reality that we’re in,” she said. “They are a type of diamond.”

    Change is afoot in the diamond world. Mined diamond production may have already peaked, according to the 2018 Bain & Company report. Lab diamonds are here to stay, although where they’re going isn’t entirely clear. Zimnisky expects that in a few years—as Lightbox’s new facility comes online and mass production of lab diamonds continues to ramp up overseas—the price industry-wide will fall to about 80 percent less than a mined diamond. At that point, he wonders whether lab-grown diamonds will start to lose their sparkle.

    Payne isn’t too worried about a price slide, which he says is happening across the diamond industry and which he expects will be “linear, not exponential” on the lab-grown side. He points out that lab-grown diamond market is still limited by supply, and that the largest lab-grown gems remain quite rare. Payne and Zimnisky both see the lab-grown diamond market bifurcating into cheaper, mass-produced gems and premium-quality stones sold by those that can maintain a strong brand. A sense that they’re selling something authentic and, well, real.

    “So much has to do with consumer psychology,” Zimnisky said.

    Some will only ever see diamonds as authentic if they formed inside the Earth. They’re drawn, as Kathryn Money, vice president of strategy and merchandising at Brilliant Earth put it, to “the history and romanticism” of diamonds; to a feeling that’s sparked by holding a piece of our ancient world. To an essence more than a function.

    Others, like Anderson, see lab-grown diamonds as the natural (to use a loaded word) evolution of diamond. “We’re actually running out of [mined] diamonds,” she said. “There is an end in sight.” Payne agreed, describing what he sees as a “looming death spiral” for diamond mining.

    Mined diamonds will never go away. We’ve been digging them up since antiquity, and they never seem to lose their sparkle. But most major mines are being exhausted. And with technology making it easier to grow diamonds just as they are getting more difficult to extract from the Earth, the lab-grown diamond industry’s grandstanding about its future doesn’t feel entirely unreasonable.

    There’s a reason why, as Payne said, “the mining industry as a whole is still quite scared of this product.”

    #dimants #Afrique #technologie #capitalisme

  • Cigna Official Site | Global Health Service Company
    https://www.cigna.com

    At Cigna, we’re your partner in total health & well-being.

    Top 822 Reviews about Cigna Health Insurance
    https://www.consumeraffairs.com/insurance/cigna_health.html

    Karen of Maumelle, AR
    Verified Reviewer
    Original review: June 19, 2019

    Cigna plays God with your health. The company refuses to cover medical expenses for treatments other insurance companies have covered for years. Cigna does not consider how well your chronic conditions have been managed in the past, or what your doctor may order to monitor your condition. I’ve had rheumatoid arthritis for years, and under United and Blue Cross coverage was able to receive the treatments I need to manage my condition well. My husband has a severe case of myasthenia gravis that we have been able to manage with Blue Cross and United. Cigna does not care if people suffer; nor do the company’s doctors respect their highly reputable colleagues in the field of medicine. The doctors spend no time understanding your medical history; they simply follow standard black and white written protocols, without regard for patients’ well-being.

    Carl Icahn Cigna: Billionaire Slams Express Scripts Deal | Fortune
    http://fortune.com/2018/08/07/carl-icahn-cigna-express-scripts

    “Purchasing Express Scripts may well become one of the worst blunders in corporate history, ranking up there with the Time Warner/AOL fiasco and General Electric’s long-running string of value destruction,” wrote Icahn, citing one of the most heavily criticized mergers of the past few decades. Icahn reportedly has acquired a “sizable” stake in Cigna, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the precise extent of that stake is unclear.

    Icahn also mentioned the specter of Amazon entering the prescription drug business as a key reason why the Cigna-Express Scripts merger would amount to a “$60 billion folly,” adding that recent federal government actions scrutinizing the largely opaque benefits management industry are also a major red flag. PBMs have been accused of being one of the key reasons why prescription drug prices remain so high.

    “When Amazon starts to compete as we believe they will, with their 100 million Prime users and scale distribution system, they will have no trouble breaking into the so called ‘ecosystem.’ With lower prices, the beneficiary will be American consumer, not the owners of Express Scripts,” wrote Icahn in an underlined section of the letter. Icahn also disclosed that he has taken a short position on Express Scripts, expecting the stock to fall.

    Behind the Scenes, Health Insurers Use Cash and Gifts to Sway Which Benefits Employers Choose | HealthLeaders Media
    https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/behind-scenes-health-insurers-use-cash-and-gifts-sway-which-bene

    The insurance industry gives lucrative commissions and bonuses to independent brokers who advise employers. Critics call the payments a “classic conflict of interest” that drive up costs.

    #USA #assurance_maladie #capitalisme

  • Alstom : le document qui prouve que GE n’a pas tenu ses engagements
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/110619/alstom-le-document-qui-prouve-que-ge-n-pas-tenu-ses-engagements

    Début novembre 2014, le gouvernement français et General Electric signaient un accord censé encadrer les conditions de reprise d’Alstom et son futur en France. Trois ans après, aucun des engagements pris par le groupe américain n’a été tenu. Les 1 000 emplois promis n’ont pas été créés. Belfort, qui devait être promu comme la division mondiale du groupe pour les turbines à gaz pendant dix ans, est aujourd’hui menacé.

    #INDUSTRIE #Alstom,_emploi,_GE,_industrie,_Belfort,_A_la_Une

  • Le naufrage d’Alstom va-t-il entraîner Macron ? (Sputnik)
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/16106-le-naufrage-d-alstom-va-t-il-entrainer-macron-sputnik

    Des intermédiaires de la vente d’Alstom qui apparaissent dans le financement de la campagne d’Emmanuel Macron, un ex-conseiller responsable de la vente du fleuron français aux Américains à la tête de GE France : des éléments à charges contre l’ancien secrétaire général adjoint puis ministre de l’Économie de François Hollande se précisent.

    « Je reste persuadé que l’affaire Alstom est une affaire extrêmement grave, qu’elle a mis en péril un fleuron de l’industrie française et je souhaite qu’aujourd’hui, où l’on voit que General Electric se dégage, notamment du site de Belfort, nous puissions nationaliser à nouveau la partie nucléaire et hydraulique et que même nous puissions avoir le contrôle de ce qui s’est passé sur les turbines à gaz. Car aujourd’hui on sait avec sérieux que General Electric a transmis à ses usines (...)

  • (20+) La justice s’intéresse aux conditions de la vente d’Alstom Energie à GE - Libération
    https://www.liberation.fr/france/2019/06/05/la-justice-s-interesse-aux-conditions-de-la-vente-d-alstom-energie-a-ge_1


    Emmanuel Macron lors d’une visite le 28 mai 2015 aux installations d’Alstom à Belfort.
    Photo Frederick Florin. AFP

    Il y a un peu plus d’un an, le député LR d’Eure-et-Loir, Olivier Marleix, avait pointé du doigt le rôle décisif d’Emmanuel Macron dans la vente d’Alstom Energie à l’américain General Electric lorsqu’il était ministre de l’Economie sous François Hollande entre 2014 et 2016 : « En autorisant la vente d’Alstom à GE, l’Etat a failli à préserver les intérêts nationaux », accusait-il. Mais le rapport de la commission d’enquête parlementaire qu’il présidait sur « les décisions de l’Etat en matière de politique industrielle », et en particulier le dossier Alstom, avait été « neutralisé » par la majorité LREM à l’Assemblée et rangé sur une étagère. Voilà que la justice s’intéresse désormais aux circonstances de cette cession annoncée en 2014 et finalisée en 2015, a-t-on appris moins d’une semaine après l’annonce de plus d’un millier de suppressions d’emplois chez GE France. Un plan social drastique qui frappe durement Belfort et contredit complètement les engagements du groupe américain.

    Selon nos confrères de l’Obs, Olivier Marleix, qui avait saisi en janvier la justice pour qu’elle enquête sur les conditions de la vente de la branche énergie d’Alstom à GE il y a quatre ans pour près 10 milliards d’euros, a été entendu le 29 mai sur son signalement par les enquêteurs de l’Office anticorruption de la police judiciaire (Oclciff) à la demande du parquet de Paris. Ce dernier « souhaitait lui faire préciser les termes de sa dénonciation », selon une source judiciaire citée par l’hebdomadaire. Laquelle précise : « S_on signalement et ses déclarations sont désormais en cours d’analyse au parquet qui étudie les suites à donner. »
    […]
    Des affirmations que l’entourage d’Emmanuel Macron a toujours réfutées, en les qualifiant d’« _affabulations
     » et de « basses manœuvres politiques » de la part d’un parlementaire « en manque de publicité ». Dans un livre sorti lui aussi mi-janvier, le Piège américain (JC Lattès), l’ancien cadre d’Alstom au cœur de l’affaire américaine, Frédéric Pierucci, accrédite pour sa part la thèse d’un chantage du Département de la justice américain (DoJ) pour contraindre les Français à vendre la branche énergie d’Alstom à General Electric : l’abandon des poursuites pouvant remonter jusqu’au PDG d’Alstom de l’époque, Patrick Kron, aurait été négocié, selon lui, en échange de la vente forcée de l’entreprise française à GE. Le tout avec l’aval du gouvernement français de l’époque et de son ministre de l’Economie, Emmanuel Macron. Son prédécesseur à Bercy, Arnaud Montebourg, s’était lui opposé à ce deal, avant de devoir quitter le gouvernement.

  • A Belfort, les syndicats de General Electric se préparent à un mouvement dur
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/economie/300519/belfort-les-syndicats-de-general-electric-se-preparent-un-mouvement-dur

    Encore sous le choc de l’annonce de la suppression de plus de 1 000 postes, essentiellement dans l’activité gaz de General Electric à Belfort, les syndicats démontent l’argumentaire fallacieux de Bruno Le Maire pour justifier le plan #SOCIAL. Ils préviennent que la colère des salariés de Belfort est immense.

    #turbines_à_gaz,_Alstom,_Belfort,_GE,_Emmanuel_Macron,_plan_social

  • 1000 #emplois supprimés par General Electric : l’histoire d’un #piège américain et d’une #trahison française
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/1000-emplois-supprimes-par-general-electric-l-histoire-d-un-piege-americain

    Quels enseignements tirer de cette catastrophe ? Tout d’abord, le rappel du caractère fondamentalement prédateur des #États-Unis d’Amérique, un État qui n’hésite pas à mettre sa puissance financière et militaire au service direct de ses #multinationales. Ensuite, les désastres provoqués par la #cupidité du #capitalisme français, privilégiant avec constance les profits financiers à court terme aux stratégies industrielles. L’#oligarchie française a cédé aux sirènes des marchés et des analystes financiers, notamment en démantelant les grands conglomérats industriels comme la CGE ou Thomson, à qui elle reprochait d’utiliser les profits des branches en bonne santé pour aider celles qui traversaient de mauvaises passes à se redresser. Soumis à l’#idéologie néo-libérale, donnant la priorité à la #dérégulation et à la « concurrence libre et non faussée », protestant comme le fit Lionel Jospin que « l’État ne peut pas tout », l’État a encouragé en France ces tendances suicidaires.

    Enfin, la clarté est faite quant à la complicité entre Emmanuel #Macron et GE tout au long de cette affaire, jusqu’au point où c’est son conseiller industrie lors du rachat qui est nommé à la tête de GE France pour mettre en œuvre le plan de restructuration…

    #France

  • General Electric supprime plus de 1000 emplois à Belfort (Le Figaro)
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/16074-general-electric-supprime-plus-de-1000-emplois-a-belfort-le-figaro

    Crédits photo : SEBASTIEN BOZON/AFP

    VIDÉO - Sur les 4000 emplois de l’usine de Belfort, 1044 vont être supprimés. Emmanuel Macron a affirmé mardi que le gouvernement s’assurerait que les engagements pris par GE en 2015 seraient tenus.

    À Belfort, c’est la douche froide. Les salariés de General Electric (GE) et les élus locaux savaient qu’un plan social était inévitable, mais celui dévoilé mardi matin par le conglomérat américain est pire qu’ils ne l’imaginaient. Ils s’attendaient à la disparition de 800 à 1 000 emplois, alors que GE annonce vouloir finalement en supprimer 1 044 : 792 dans la branche des turbines à gaz, en difficulté, et 252 dans les services supports de ces activités (informatique, comptabilité…).

    C’est un quart des effectifs totaux du groupe américain dans le département (4 300 personnes) et (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_françaises

  • General Electric : un proche de Macron aux manettes d’un plan social « avant l’été » - Le Parisien
    http://www.leparisien.fr/economie/general-electric-un-proche-de-macron-aux-manettes-d-un-plan-social-avant-


    AFP/Sébastien Bozon

    Un plan de restructuration douloureux se prépare à Belfort où le parcours du nouveau directeur fait des vagues. Et pour cause : il a été le conseiller Industrie d’Emmanuel Macron.
    […]
    « Le plan devrait toucher 800 à 1000 salariés. Il va être annoncé après les élections européennes du 26 mai, sans doute en juin », précise le maire (LR) de Belfort Damien Merlot qui prend, depuis quelques jours, des contacts avec des entreprises pour les attirer à Belfort, berceau industriel où 4300 personnes sont employées par GE sur le plus grand site mondial de l’entreprise.

    Pour aider à la reconversion, l’État peut déjà compter sur un chèque de 50 millions d’euros qu’a dû signer GE pour ne pas avoir créé les 1000 emplois en France promis au moment du rachat d’Alstom en 2015. Mais ce ne sera sans doute pas suffisant pour calmer la colère des salariés qui mettent directement en cause dans ce drame industriel à venir la responsabilité d’Emmanuel Macron – ministre de l’Economie de 2014 à 2015 au moment du rachat d’Alstom.

    Voilà des mois que l’inquiétude grandit sur ce site spécialisé dans les turbines à gaz. Le 22 avril, Hugh Bailey, un nouveau directeur général a fait son arrivée à la tête de GE. Ce haut fonctionnaire de 39 ans, ancien conseiller Industrie au cabinet d’Emmanuel Macron à Bercy, sera chargé de piloter la saignée des prochains mois.

    Son arrivée n’a pas manqué de faire grincer des dents. « Nous l’avons rencontré le 6 mai et j’avais l’impression de parler à un ministre, vilipende un syndicaliste. Il n’a pas arrêté de faire des lapsus, disant Nous et General Electric comme s’il était encore en poste à Bercy », poursuit-il. « Ce mélange des genres est très mal vécu au niveau local », attaque aussi un élu.

  • Disparition du Salvator Mundi de Léonard de Vinci : « Notre patrimoine est vendu à la découpe »
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/disparition-du-salvator-mundi-de-leonard-de-vinci-notre-patrimoine-est-vend


    TOLGA AKMEN/AFP

    FIGAROVOX/ENTRETIEN - Depuis qu’il a été vendu aux enchères à un investisseur saoudien, le tableau est introuvable, alors que le Louvre est à sa recherche pour son exposition d’octobre prochain à l’occasion des 500 ans de la mort du génie italien. Le décryptage de Laurent Izard.

    Laurent Izard est normalien et agrégé de l’Université en économie et gestion. Diplômé en droit de l’Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, professeur de chaire supérieure, il est l’auteur de nombreux manuels d’enseignement supérieur en économie et gestion. Il vient de publier La France vendue à la découpe (L’Artilleur, janvier 2019), une enquête qui fait le récit d’un long renoncement et passe en revue de nombreux secteurs de l’économie française vendus à des capitaux étrangers.

    FIGAROVOX.- Le « Salvator Mundi » de Léonard de Vinci, adjugé 450 millions de dollars en 2017 à un milliardaire saoudien, a disparu depuis sa vente dans le monde de l’art. Le Louvre souhaite pourtant qu’il figure dans son exposition pour les 500 ans de la mort de Léonard de Vinci prévue cet automne. Quelle analyse faites-vous de cet incident ? Que des milliardaires d’Arabie Saoudite possèdent nos plus grands tableaux ne pose-t-il pas problème ?
    Laurent IZARD.- La situation du « Salvator Mundi » pose effectivement de nombreuses questions : qui en est aujourd’hui le véritable propriétaire ? Lors de la vente aux enchères à New York en 2017, l’adjudicataire était-il un simple mandataire ? Quelle est la localisation actuelle du tableau ?

    Pourquoi son exposition au Louvre d’Abu Dhabi prévue en septembre 2018 a-t-elle été reportée ? Pourra-t-on le contempler en octobre prochain lors de l’exposition prévue à Paris, au Louvre, en octobre 2019 ? Ces interrogations ravivent de surcroît des querelles artistiques beaucoup plus anciennes : s’agit-il réellement d’une œuvre de Léonard de Vinci ou a-t-il seulement participé à la réalisation de ce tableau ? Les œuvres du Maître font-elles partie du patrimoine artistique français ou italien ?

    Mais au-delà des controverses factuelles ou historiques, le « Salvator Mundi » est au cœur d’un débat beaucoup plus vaste, qui mêle des considérations juridiques, économiques et éthiques : d’un point de vue strictement juridique, l’acquéreur, titulaire d’un droit de propriété sur l’œuvre acquise en a l’entière maîtrise : il n’a aucune obligation d’exposer ou de prêter son bien.

    Certains invoquent le caractère perpétuel et inaliénable du droit moral sur les œuvres d’art, qui s’opposerait aux prérogatives du propriétaire. Mais il est peu probable que le droit saoudien, par exemple, valide cette limitation du droit de propriété… Et d’un point de vue économique, celui qui propose la meilleure offre devient logiquement propriétaire de l’œuvre vendue aux enchères.
    Il est néanmoins choquant qu’un particulier, quel qu’il soit, puisse avoir le bénéfice exclusif d’œuvres d’un intérêt exceptionnel comme le « Salvator Mundi ». Fort heureusement, la plupart de ces œuvres sont aujourd’hui la propriété de musées. Mais pour les autres, on peut légitimement s’interroger sur une évolution possible de leur statut juridique au regard du droit international. L’Unesco qui veille à la protection des sites d’exception du patrimoine mondial ou à la sauvegarde du patrimoine immatériel culturel de l’humanité pourrait avoir un rôle moteur en la matière.
    […]
    N’y a-t-il pas aussi dans cette affaire le reflet d’une idéologie de la privatisation et de la cession de notre patrimoine qui est à l’œuvre plus globalement ? Est-ce abusif de penser qu’Emmanuel Macron en est la figure de proue ?
    Que nous le voulions ou non, nous évoluons dans une économie ouverte et mondialisée. Mais aujourd’hui, le différentiel de potentiel financier entre acteurs économiques aboutit inéluctablement à des situations de domination voire de dépendance. Les États les plus fortunés s’approprient peu à peu le patrimoine économique et culturel d’autres pays, sans que ce phénomène inquiète la plupart de nos dirigeants, plus soucieux de la stabilité du taux de croissance ou de la préservation de l’emploi. Ainsi, en l’espace de quelques décennies, une part non négligeable du patrimoine industriel, immobilier, foncier et même historique de la France a été dispersée, souvent au profit d’investisseurs internationaux. Et même si ce processus n’en est qu’à son début, de nombreuses entreprises d’origine française sont d’ores et déjà contrôlées par des fonds d’investissement, des fonds souverains ou des firmes multinationales, principalement originaires des États-Unis, d’Allemagne, d’Asie ou du Moyen-Orient. Ce phénomène concerne tous les actifs patrimoniaux qui peuvent présenter un intérêt économique direct ou indirect : les œuvres d’art, le patrimoine immobilier, les brevets, les terres agricoles, les clubs sportifs, etc.

    Évidemment, chaque cession présente un intérêt économique, industriel ou financier pour l’acquéreur comme pour le vendeur et l’on pourrait se réjouir de l’attractivité de notre pays ainsi que de la dynamique économique impulsée par les investisseurs internationaux. D’autre part, les investisseurs français rachètent également des entreprises étrangères. Mais si le jeu n’est pas à sens unique, il n’est pas non plus équilibré. Et la dispersion de notre patrimoine nous conduit peu à peu à perdre notre souveraineté économique et politique. Nous abandonnons notre pouvoir de décision et nous devenons chaque jour un peu plus dépendants d’investisseurs internationaux fortunés, publics ou privés. Les cessions de Péchiney, Arcelor ou Alcatel - comme celles de nombreux autres groupes ou de leurs filiales - ont d’autre part contribué à la désindustrialisation de notre pays, à l’aggravation de notre déficit extérieur et à la perte d’influence de la France dans le monde.

    Emmanuel Macron, en tant que ministre de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et du Numérique, puis en tant que président de la République, a joué un rôle actif dans la cession de fleurons de notre patrimoine économique. Il a notamment autorisé la privatisation de l’aéroport de Toulouse-Blagnac - cédé à un investisseur chinois peu fiable - et a approuvé le protocole de cession de la branche « énergie » d’Alstom à General Electric, qui nous prive de notre indépendance énergétique et militaire. Face au risque hégémonique chinois lié aux « Nouvelles routes de la soie », Emmanuel Macron a toutefois appelé à « la défense d’une souveraineté européenne ». Et Bruno Le Maire, quant à lui, n’a pas hésité à parler d’ « investissements de pillage ». Prise de conscience tardive ou double jeu ? Difficile de faire la part des choses.

    En tout cas, il est peu probable que les mesures de protection de nos intérêts stratégiques prévues dans la loi « Pacte » auront une quelconque efficacité : dans un passé récent, les décrets « Villepin » et « Montebourg » ont montré leurs limites. Mais une chose est sûre : par naïveté, par faiblesse ou par couardise, nous avons jusqu’à présent toléré une totale absence de réciprocité dans l’investissement international : les entrepreneurs français qui ont tenté d’acquérir une entreprise chinoise ou américaine ne démentiront pas…

  • General Electric envisage jusqu’à 470 suppressions d’emploi en France
    https://lemediapresse.fr/actualites/general-electric-envisage-jusqua-470-suppressions-demploi-en-france

    La direction a confirmé que le site de Belfort est concerné. Elle négocie des ruptures conventionnelles collectives introduites dans la réforme du code du travail en 2017. Les premiers départs pourraient intervenir dès avril. La direction de General Electric (GE) explique qu’elle doit adapter ses effectifs à « la réalité du marché », qui est aujourd’hui très dégradé. La […]

  • Vente d’Alstom : un ex-dirigeant incarcéré accuse les États-Unis de chantage
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/15509-vente-d-alstom-un-ex-dirigeant-incarcere-accuse-les-etats-unis-de-c

    « La France ne le sait pas, mais nous sommes en guerre avec l’Amérique. Oui, une guerre permanente, une guerre vitale, une guerre économique, une guerre sans mort…apparemment. Oui, ils sont très durs les Américains, ils sont voraces, ils veulent un pouvoir sans partage sur le monde… C’est une guerre inconnue, une guerre permanente, sans mort apparemment et pourtant une guerre à mort ! »

    François Mitterrand

    La branche énergie d’Alstom a été rachetée en 2013 par l’américain General Electric. - Crédits photo : S. BOZON/AFP

    Nouvelle étape dans le thriller industriel de la vente d’Alstom à General Electric. Un ancien dirigeant, incarcéré deux ans aux États-Unis, affirme que les Américains ont voulu faire pression sur l’équipe dirigeante pour les obliger à vendre l’entreprise.

    « Pantin dans (...)

  • L’ex-cadre qui relance l’#affaire #Alstom
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/01/15/zones-d-ombre-sur-la-vente-de-la-branche-energie-d-alstom-a-ge-temoignage-d-
    #GUERRE_INDUSTRIELLE

    Frédéric #Pierucci, président de la filiale chaudière d’Alstom, est arrêté le 14 avril 2013 à New York par le FBI pour une affaire de corruption en Indonésie. Un an plus tard, il apprend en prison la vente de son entreprise à l’américain #General_Electric. Pour lui, il ne fait aucun doute que les deux affaires sont liées. Son livre, publié le 16 janvier aux éditions JC Lattès, raconte, au travers de son histoire, les coulisses de la guerre économique que les Etats-Unis livrent à l’Europe.

    Je suis en train de prendre mon petit-déjeuner, de la bouillie d’avoine, dans la salle commune de Wyatt. Il est 7 h 30. Je regarde CNN sur la télé réservée aux Blancs. Et là, j’entends le scoop de l’agence Bloomberg : Alstom serait prêt à céder 70 % de ses activités, toute sa branche énergie, à l’un de ses principaux concurrents, l’américain General Electric. Je tombe de ma chaise, je suis fou furieux.

    Toute cette histoire, mon incarcération, l’enquête du DoJ lancée depuis 2010, n’avait-elle qu’un but : s’emparer d’Alstom en faisant pression sur Patrick Kron ? Jusqu’alors, je croyais à une simple opération anti-corruption qui allait se solder, une nouvelle fois, par une amende élevée pour un groupe français. Ce pourrait donc être bien pire.

    • ronnie barkan @ronnie_barkan | 29 déc.
      https://twitter.com/ronnie_barkan/status/1078886873160912896

      1/ Good riddance #AmosOz.
      Oz was a leading apologist for mass-murder and #apartheid - all in the name of peace of course.
      Below is a letter by authors and self-proclaimed leftists Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, which was sent in April 2010 to the UC Berkeley student senate.

      2/ The two have the gull to blame the Berkeley students of antisemitism, or at the very least allude to that, coz the student senate had voted to divest from American companies General Electric and United Technologies that supplied #apartheid Israel
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U1Kmae17OsjXmD2Vb7IzN_aJGS3JLEQa/edit

      3/ with the means of destruction that were used during its assault on #Gaza the year before - massacring 1400 people, including over 350 children. The two low-lives, Oz and Yehoshua, blamed the students of antisemitism for what exactly?!

      4/ For refusing to fund two American weapon manufacturers whose war machines were used for the massacre of children in the besieged #Gaza ghetto. In a way, their propaganda letter could not have been a more sinister & grotesque creation. Maybe they’re talented writers after all!

      5/ Want another of many such examples?
      As a dedicated apologist for Israeli mass-murder, #Oz begins the Deutsche Welle interview of 2014, during another onslaught on #Gaza, with these outrageous lies:

      6/ Amos Oz: I would like to begin the interview in a very unusual way: by presenting one or two questions to your readers and listeners. May I do that?
      Deutsche Welle: Go ahead!
      Amos Oz: Question 1: What would you do if your neighbor across the street sits down on the balcony,

      7/ puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery?
      Amos Oz: Question 2: What would you do if your neighbor across the street digs a tunnel from his nursery to your nursery in order to blow up your home or in order to kidnap your family?

      8/ These are your peaceniks, Israel. Their sheer supremacy and moral depravity will not be missed.
      NOTE: If you were offended by the above text - still desperately clinging on to the notion that Oz represents the good side of humanity -

      9/ ask yourself whether you’d be upset w/ writing about the demise of an outright fascist? Oz and his ilk represent, as far as I’m concerned, a far greater danger than the Liebermans & Netanyahus of the world, and your attempt to see him as any different exactly proves my point.

  • Le système Pierre #Rabhi, par Jean-Baptiste Malet (Le Monde diplomatique, août 2018)
    https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2018/08/MALET/58981

    Frugalité et marketing
    Le système Pierre Rabhi


    La panne des grandes espérances politiques remet au goût du jour une vieille idée : pour changer le monde, il suffirait de se changer soi-même et de renouer avec la #nature des liens détruits par la modernité. Portée par des personnalités charismatiques, comme le paysan ardéchois Pierre Rabhi, cette « insurrection des consciences » qui appelle chacun à « faire sa part » connaît un succès grandissant.
    En se répétant presque mot pour mot d’une apparition à une autre, Rabhi cisèle depuis plus d’un demi-siècle le récit autobiographique qui tient lieu à la fois de produit de consommation de masse et de manifeste articulé autour d’un choix personnel effectué en 1960, celui d’un « retour à la #terre » dans le respect des valeurs de simplicité, d’humilité, de sincérité et de vertu. Ses ouvrages centrés sur sa personne, ses centaines de discours et d’entretiens qui, tous, racontent sa vie ont abouti à ce résultat singulier : cet homme qui parle continuellement de lui-même incarne aux yeux de ses admirateurs et des journalistes la modestie et le sens des limites. Rues, parcs, centres sociaux, hameaux portent le nom de ce saint laïque, promu en 2017 chevalier de la Légion d’honneur. Dans les médias, l’auteur de Vers la sobriété heureuse (Actes Sud, 2010) jouit d’une popularité telle que France Inter peut transformer sa matinale en édition spéciale en direct de son domicile (13 mars 2014) et France 2 consacrer trente-cinq minutes, à l’heure du déjeuner, le 7 octobre 2017, à louanger ce « paysan, penseur, écrivain, philosophe et poète » qui « propose une révolution ».

    par Jean-Baptiste Malet

  • Navy Seeks $30 Million to Fix Gear That Hobbled Its New Carrier - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-25/navy-seeks-30-million-to-fix-gear-that-hobbled-its-new-carrier

    The Navy is asking Congress to shift $30 million from other accounts to start repairing a damaged gear on the service’s costliest warship, the Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier.

    The request for funds to repair the $13 billion carrier is part of a Pentagon package asking congressional approval to shift $4.7 billion in previously approved Army, Air Force and Navy funding into new programs or higher-priority projects. The package must be approved by all four congressional defense committees, where it’s pending.

    The $30 million is needed to pay for repairs to the propulsion-system gear while the carrier’s builder, Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., “seeks compensation from the original manufacturer for warranty defects,” Naval Sea Systems spokesman William Couch said in an email.

    The Ford was forced to return to port after the failure in January of a “main thrust bearing” that’s a key propulsion system component. It returned to sea after the damage was contained. The defective gear was the result of “machining errors” by a General Electric Co. unit, according to Navy documents. Full repairs will take place during the vessel’s current yearlong shakeout period.

  • Alstom. General Electric ne tiendra pas ses engagements en termes d’emploi en France
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/14967-alstom-general-electric-ne-tiendra-pas-ses-engagements-en-termes-d-

    Preuve du dépecage organisé de notre pays, avec la complicité des gouvernements sucessifs... (Informations complémentaires)

    Le groupe américain General Electric (GE) a annoncé au gouvernement qu’il ne tiendrait pas son engagement de

    créer 1 000 emplois en France d’ici à la fin 2018. | ARND WIEGMANN / REUTERS

    Le groupe américain General Electric (GE) a annoncé au gouvernement qu’il ne tiendrait pas son engagement de créer 1 000 emplois en France d’ici à la fin 2018, comme promis lors du rachat de la branche énergie d’Alstom il y a quatre ans. C’est ce qu’a indiqué Bercy ce jeudi.

    323 au lieu de 1 000. Soit un manque de 677. Le groupe américain General Electric (GE), qui avait promis un millier d’embauches au moment du rachat de la branche énergie du français Alstom, voici quatre ans, n’a pas tenu (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_françaises

  • Revue de presse du jour comprenant l’actualité nationale et internationale de ce jeudi 14 juin 2018
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/revue-de-presse/14966-revue-de-presse-du-jour-comprenant-l-actualite-nationale-et-interna

    Bonjour chèr(e)s ami(e)s, avec un peut de retard, voici notre Revue de presse du jour, et comme toujours en complément la Defcon-Room (actualisée 24h/24 et 7j/7) vous tend les bras tout au long de la journée.

    Bonne lecture, bonne journée, et merci de votre confiance. ; )

    Amitiés,

    L’Amourfou / Contributeur anonyme / Chalouette

    Actualités françaises :

    14.06.2018

    General Electric ne tiendra pas ses engagements en matière d’emploi en France (Le Monde.fr)

    Marisol Touraine : « Contrairement au discours en vogue, les dépenses sociales sont efficaces » (Le Monde.fr)

    Direction de l’Inserm : le "potentiel conflit d’intérêts" de la ministre Agnès Buzyn avec son mari dénoncé jusqu’au Royaume-Uni (Marianne.net)

    « Vous coûtez un pognon de dingue ! Surtout les pauvres !! » L’édito de (...)

  • U.S. Navy’s Costliest Warship Suffers New Failure at Sea - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-08/carrier-suffers-new-failure-at-sea-as-u-s-navy-seeks-more-funds

    The Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s costliest warship, suffered a new failure at sea that forced it back to port and raised fresh questions about the new class of aircraft carriers.

    The previously undisclosed problem with a propulsion system bearing, which occurred in January but has yet to be remedied, comes as the Navy is poised to request approval from a supportive Congress to expedite a contract for a fourth carrier in what was to have been a three-ship class. It’s part of a push to expand the Navy’s 284-ship fleet to 355 as soon as the mid-2030s.
    […]
    The Naval Sea Systems Command said the Ford experienced “an out of specification condition” with a propulsion system component. Huntington Ingalls determined it was due to a “manufacturing defect,” the command said, and “not improper operation” by sailors. The defect “affects the same component” located in other parts of the propulsion system, the Navy added.
    […]
    Couch and Huntington Ingalls spokesman Beci Brenton declined to say who made the bearing that failed.

    But General Electric Co. is responsible for the propulsion system part, and the Navy program office said in an assessment that an inspection of the carrier’s four main thrust bearings after the January failure revealed “machining errors” by GE workers at a Lynn, Massachusetts, facility “during the original manufacturing” as “the actual root cause.”

    Deborah Case, a GE spokeswoman, said in an email that “GE did produce the gears for the CVN-78. However, we are no longer producing gears for CVN-78” and “we cannot comment on the investigation.

  • Où est le repentir de l’Église ? demande une Autochtone au pape

    Honte, scandale, tromperie, déni, comble de l’hypocrisie : c’est en employant des mots très durs qu’une survivante des #pensionnats_autochtones s’adresse « d’égale à égal » au pape François, quelque temps après qu’il eut refusé de présenter des #excuses au nom de l’Église catholique pour « le mal » qui a été commis à grande échelle dans ces établissements.


    https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/a-la-une/document/nouvelles/article/1095648/pensionnats-eglise-catholique-abus-sexuels
    #Canada #Eglise_catholique #peuples_autochtones #abus_sexuels #violences_sexuelles #viols #Asiskikootewanapiskosis #Bernice_Daigneault
    cc @daphne @marty

    • #catholicisme #racisme #avarice

      Bernice Daigneault déplore également que l’Église catholique se soit jusqu’ici montrée si réticente à contribuer aux efforts du gouvernement du Canada pour indemniser les victimes des pensionnats. « C’est une honte », écrit-elle.

      On retrouve la methode habituel des catholiques, d’accord pour blanchir l’argent de la mafia, prendre 60% de commission sur les trafiques d’organes et sur la prostitution des enfants, les ventes d’armes... via la banque du vatican dont le pape à confié la direction à son ami pedophile australien amateur de capa magna. D’accord pour détourné les héritages, d’accord pour ne payé aucune impot en Italie (alors que c’est le premier propriétaire immobilier du pays), d’accord pour gratter les sous des malades, des orphelin·es, des mourrant·es, d’accord pour se pavané en robe en or, mais payé un centime pour les victimes surement pas.
      Pour rappel aux USA l’église catholique avaient déposé le bilan pour ne dédomagé aucune des victimes de pedoviol commis de manière industrielle comme le fait d’habitude cette organisation mafieuse.

      Plusieurs diocèses et archevêchés ont déposé le bilan

      L’Eglise catholique américaine est même « à court d’argent parce qu’elle a dépensé des milliards de dollars en frais judiciaires et dommages et intérêts », affirme Massimo Faggioli, historien à la faculté de théologie de l’université Saint Thomas, dans le Minnesota.

      Depuis les révélations du début des années 2000, elle a dépensé 3 milliards de dollars en procès ou thérapies, selon le site bishop-accountability.com. Neuf diocèses (sur 145) et trois archevêchés (sur 33) ont même déposé le bilan. Mais pour Jack M. Ruhl, spécialiste des finances de l’Eglise américaine et professeur de comptabilité à l’université de Western Michigan, l’institution n’est pas pour autant ruinée car elle reste « très fortunée, détentrice d’une énorme quantité de biens ».

      Le magazine The Economist avait évalué ses dépenses annuelles en 2010 à 170 milliards de dollars, soit davantage que le chiffre d’affaires de General Electric à la même époque (150 milliards).

      https://www.20minutes.fr/monde/1689739-20150918-etats-unis-pedophilie-deja-coute-plus-trois-milliards-dol
      N’allez pas croire que les 3 milliards ont été dépensé pour les victimes, c’est les sous que leur ont coutés les avocats pour défendre leurs violeurs d’enfants et leur garantir l’impunité.

    • Pour rappel, le livre de @daphne, @marty et Mathieu Périsse de @wereport
      Église, la mécanique du silence

      2016, année noire pour l’Église catholique française, confrontée aux plus grands scandales de pédophilie de son histoire.
      Les auteurs ont enquêté pendant un an. De Lyon, où leur travail commence autour de l’affaire Barbarin, à la Guinée, en passant par Montauban, le Canada, Paris et Rome, ils révèlent de multiples affaires de prêtres pédophiles dissimulées par l’institution catholique.
      Ils ont écouté de nombreuses victimes, interrogé des lanceurs d’alerte au sein de l’Église, rencontré des prêtres auteurs d’abus sexuels, interviewé des hiérarques ecclésiastiques et eu accès à des documents confidentiels.
      Ils dessinent une stupéfiante machine à fabriquer du silence pour couvrir les crimes. Le livre raconte le système d’exfiltration mis en place par l’Église de France pour écarter les prêtres abuseurs… non pas des enfants mais des juges : mise au vert, mise en congé sabbatique, placement en abbayes ou mutation à l’étranger.
      Comment l’institution s’est-elle protégée en couvrant ses prêtres, sans jamais les dénoncer à la justice ? Et si le scandale était, au-delà des faits eux-mêmes, ce système organisé pour l’étouffer ?
      Un document essentiel pour comprendre l’engrenage du silence auquel ont été assignées des centaines de victimes.


      http://www.editions-jclattes.fr/eglise-la-mecanique-du-silence-9782709659383

  • La France a perdu sa souveraineté au profit des USA, dénonce un ex-DGSE
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/14676-la-france-a-perdu-sa-souverainete-au-profit-des-usa-denonce-un-ex-d

    « On ne peut plus faire de sous-marin atomique en France sans autorisation américaine, » a déclaré devant une commission de l’Assemblée nationale Alain Juillet, ancien membre du Service Action (SA) et directeur du renseignement de la Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (DGSE).

    Citant l’exemple des avions de combat Rafale que la France ne pourrait plus livrer à l’Egypte à cause de la législation ITAR qui interdit l’exportation de composants technologiques américains sans autorisation du gouvernement américain, Alain Juillet rappelle que la vente d’Alstom à General Electric (GE) pour laquelle l’actuel président de la République Emmanuel Macron fut décisif a transféré aux Etats-Unis la production des turbines indispensables aux sous-marins français à propulsion nucléaire, clef de voûte de la dissuasion (...)

  • En difficulté, General Electric prévoit de supprimer des milliers d’emplois...
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/actualites-france/14183-en-difficulte-general-electric-prevoit-de-supprimer-des-milliers-d-

    En difficulté, General Electric a annoncé ce lundi se recentrer sur trois activités. AFP/LOIC VENANCE

    Le fabricant de moteurs d’avion a annoncé se recentrer sur trois activités : aéronautique, santé et énergie.

    En difficulté, General Electric a annoncé ce lundi un vaste plan de restructuration visant à se recentrer sur trois activités (aéronautique, santé et énergie) et s’accompagnant de milliers de suppressions d’emplois à travers le monde pour réduire ses coûts.

    Le fabricant de moteurs d’avions et de turbines, dont la capitalisation boursière a fondu de plus de 100 milliards de dollars depuis janvier, va également céder ses activités historiques dans les transports (locomotives et moteurs diesel) et les services d’électricité dans le cadre d’un plan de cessions d’actifs de (...)

    #En_vedette #Actualités_françaises

  • Moteurs d’hélicoptère : Safran voit gros, très gros
    http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/moteurs-d-helicoptere-safran-voit-gros-tres-gros-752626.html

    Safran Helicopter Engines lance une nouvelle famille de moteurs de forte puissance, qui est disponible immédiatement pour le marché. Le motoriste vise la place de leader dans ce segment de marché.

    Safran Helicopter Engines (Safran HE) se renforce considérablement dans les moteurs de forte puissance. Ainsi, la filiale de Safran a lancé mardi une nouvelle famille disponible pour le marché dès maintenant et baptisée Aneto, du nom du très célèbre et plus haut sommet pyrénéen, qui culmine à 3404 mètres. Conçue pour les appareils super-medium et lourds, la famille Aneto offrira au moins trois versions, qui couvriront la gamme de puissance allant de 2.500 à plus de 3.000 chevaux. Première prise de guerre pour Safran HE, Leonardo qui va remotoriser l’AW189 avec le moteur Aneto 1-K (2.500 chevaux) et le proposer en double source à côté du CT7 de General Electric (GE). Cet appareil entrera en service fin 2018.