|
The bedrock raw
materials of the jewelry industry, gold and diamonds, are both
compact and extremely valuable. Also, they are both prospected
by individuals and also mined on an industrial scale. Because
they are both forms of concentrated wealth, they often inspire
the worst in people: smuggling, cupidity, cheating, and a
disregard for social and environmental costs in the getting.
In this decade, jewelry marketers have made efforts to confront
and deal with the ‘dark side’ of decorative minerals, mostly
publicly with diamonds from Africa. Starting even before the
release of the Leonardo DiCapricio film “Blood Diamond,” there
has been a campaign to confront the reality of how diamonds are
obtained, and whose hands they might pass through before showing
up in your jeweler’s showcase.
Back in 2004, the Associated Press reported on such organized
efforts:
"The jewelry industry has already started the process of
guaranteeing that its raw materials came only from socially and
environmentally friendly mining companies, according to Jewelers
of America, an industry group."
"For several years, the group has been pushing a policy of
supporting “responsible mining of minerals and metals,” said
Fred Michmershuizen, director of marketing for the New
York-based group."
"Jewelers of America played a leading role in reducing the sale
of so-called blood diamonds that help fund wars in Angola,
Sierra Leone, Congo and Liberia. Last year, 45 countries signed
on to an agreement requiring every diamond to be accompanied by
a certificate of origin."
Today, the concept of “dirty gold” is similarly being put forth
(see NoDirtyGold.org). The argument is being made that the
element gold, to be commercially acceptable, should be held to
certain ethical and moral standards, including: it should have
not been a trade item in a war zone or used to finance any human
conflict, should be mined at no harm whatsoever to residents
local to the mining operation, and should be mined in a way that
has or leaves no harmful effects to the local wildlife or water
sources. Pretty tough standards for a metal that is entirely
fungible, malleable, and, unlike diamonds, totally uncertifiable
in its essence. But the shining idea is to bring pressure to
bear upon retailers, chiefly jewelers, to sell only gold items
whose provenance is provably of the ‘clean’ variety.
From their press release of February 8th, 2007:
WASHINGTON, DC – This Valentine’s season, 11 jewelry retailers
are announcing their support for the No Dirty Gold campaign’s
Golden Rules criteria for more socially and environmentally
responsible mining, bringing the total number of jewelry
retailers supporting the Golden Rules up to 19. The list
includes 7 of the 10 largest U.S. retailers of jewelry, and
represents about 22 percent of the country’s total jewelry
market. The companies added to the list this year are: Fred
Meyer and Littman Jewelers, Ben Bridge Jeweler, Wal-Mart, QVC,
Birks & Mayors, Commemorative Brands, Brilliant Earth, Leber
Jeweler, TurningPoint, Boscov’s and Michaels Jewelers.
“It is important for us as retail jewelers to do all practically
in our power to adhere to the principles of the No Dirty Gold
campaign. It is the ‘right thing to do’ for our community, our
customers, as well as the world environment,” said Jonathan
Bridge, co-CEO of Seattle-based Ben Bridge Jeweler.
“By signing onto the Golden Rules, these jewelry retailers have
burnished their reputations as industry leaders. Customers in
Paris and mining-affected communities in Peru alike will take
note of their support for improved mining practices,” said Payal
Sampat of environmental organization EARTHWORKS and co-director
of the No Dirty Gold campaign. More than 55,000 consumers
worldwide have signed a pledge calling on jewelers and mining
companies to provide an alternative to “dirty” gold.
The “No More Dirty Gold” campaign is patterned on the concern
over diamonds from shady or undocumented sources in Africa.
Starting in the 1990s, the world began to notice that much of
the proceeds of diamond mining in Angola and other parts of
Africa was being used to finance civil wars between nations and
tribes. Diamonds, being small and easily smuggled and traded,
were becoming the financial bedrock of some of the world’s
bloodiest civil and ethnic conflicts.
In short, diamonds themselves were giving diamonds a bad name.
There was a fear among firms from DeBeers to Zales to your
corner jeweler that potential new brides would start to see
through these little clear and colorless stones, and instead
begin to appreciate the beauty of a well-cut piece of turquoise,
fire opal , or even petrified wood to seal their vows.
The Kimberley Certification Process exists today to ensure that
the diamond your jeweler shows you in fact is ‘conflict free’
and not tainted by the actions of Africa’s civil strife, child
soldiers, or its very miners themselves. But the Kimberley
process is not without its flaws. For one, a diamond is
certified as ‘clean’ by the government of its supposed point of
origin. Being that some of the most corrupt governments in the
world rule many nations in Africa, this is a very small
assurance. And, as always, diamonds can easily cross borders and
therefore earn ‘certification’ in their new country. But for
DeBeers, the Diamond Council, and both chain and local diamond
merchants, image is all. Whether any organization could
demonstrate any measure of lives actually saved through the
Kimberley Certification Process is, of course, the unanswerable
multi-billion dollar question.
But at least diamonds have the practical advantage of being
‘taggable’ and therefore somewhat traceable. For instance,
diamonds from areas in Canada deemed to be conflict-free (i.e,
not within sight of a hockey arena) today have serial numbers
and logos of origin micro-engraved by lasers onto their girdles
(the invisible ‘outer side’ of a round brilliant cut gem).
Gold, however, is readily convertible from one form to another,
easily slipped across borders, and once it is refined, cannot be
traced to its source. Should some countries’ gold production be
labeled ‘dirty gold’ and become anathema to politically correct
American jewelry-buyers, there will still be markets in Hong
Kong, Calcutta, Malaysia, Dubai, and wherever gold is traded
around the world, ready and willing to take on any pure gold
with nary a thought to its origins.
Thus do markets work. The gasoline we put in our cars today in
the US may be refined from Texas crude, but its more likely
source is Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela, or some of our friends in the
Middle East. We might try to ‘boycott’ a commodity from a
particular location, but that just means that the same commodity
will be diverted from across the world to fill the local need.
Since fungible commodities flow to the market that pays the
most, is there any sense in trying to pin down their
geographical origin and make value judgments based thereon?
Not only is blaming an element for human sins illogical, it is
also unworkable. As Dorothy Kosich at mineweb.com writes, “Thus
far, however, no groups have publicly proposed a supply chain
which could actually track the path of “green gold” from mine
site to the retailers.”
Of course, no one except the most abject mining industry
apologist would deny that gold mining is hard, dirty work that
often wreaks havoc on the environment in which it is found. The
environmental and social problems associated with gold mining
are significant, and numerous instances of irresponsible mining
practices have been documented over the past decade, many of
which are cited on the website NoDirtyGold.org. But labeling
gold without the proper pedigree as ‘dirty gold’ will only
succeed in making a group of well-meaning but naïve consumers
feel good about themselves as they purchase jewelry. This
ineffectual boycott will not genuinely affect that gold’s
marketability, and does little to address the problems
associated with gold mining. Such issues are properly the
concern of local and national governments through environmental,
national resource, labor, and private property laws.
Over 125,000 tonnes of gold have been gathered, mined, worked
into beautiful shapes, and fought over since the dawn of human
history. Every single atom of it may potentially be ‘dirty
gold.’ Your wedding band may contain atoms from the Golden Calf,
or some other, perhaps less infamous, graven image. Your local
jeweler, with his tasteful and well-lit displays, is likely
offering you, unknowingly, traces of gold dug by enslaved
captives of the ancient Greek or Roman Empires, gold from looted
tombs in ancient Egypt, or gold ‘liberated’ from any number of
rightful owners via the threat of violence, or cold-blooded
murder itself.
Gold has been the ultimate recycled metal throughout human
history, forever changing form as it changes hands. That
universality has kept it flowing around the world. For instance,
gold from the treasures of Peru, mined during the seventeenth
century under conditions deadly to the South American natives,
was sent back to Spain, melted, and spent prolifically
throughout Europe for centuries – its atoms may reside today in
British sovereigns, French or Swiss 20-franc coins, or even
today’s brand-new Austrian Philharmonics gold bullion coins. Nor
are US coins likely to be free of such taint. During the brief
period of the California Gold Rush of 1849-1851, thousands of
people starved, died of exposure, or were murdered outright
during one of our nation’s most riotously lawless periods. The
gold produced during this violent period of wealth creation
resides today in old U.S. coins, in prized antique and heirloom
jewelry, and in the vaults of Fort Knox.
The story of gold has always paralleled that of our species,
both in its nastiness and in its brilliance. This soft,
brilliant, non-reactive metal has been sought and admired by
humans since the beginning of recorded history. From the “Tears
of the Sun” to the root of all evil, gold has paradoxically
embodied purity and covetiveness, security and strife, the
beauty of art and the horror of conquest.
Today we are being advised to avoid something called ‘dirty
gold.’ Yet, each year some 2500 tonnes of gold are mined,
providing a decent wage for hundreds of thousands of people.
Which of those miners would the ‘dirty gold’ idealists want to
put out of work, simply because they are in the wrong part of
the world, or digging on the wrong mountain, or living under the
wrong dictator?
In short, 'No dirty gold’ may prove to be an effective marketing
campaign to make American consumers feel good about choosing one
group of retail jewelers over others. But it ignores how
fungible commodities price, trade, and travel, and in the end
will likely have no effect on gold markets or mining practices.
-Richard Smith.
|
