What a lovely idea.
Many people don't like diamonds apart from the political and abuse problems they result from. This ring says "I car about you and I care about the world we are in."
Personally, buying real estate seems like a more intelligent way to spend money if an investment is what engagement jewelry is all about.
2
More info and images of the Smog Free Ring can be found here: https://www.studioroosegaarde.net/project/smog-free-ring. Thank you! Studio Roosegaarde (designers of the ring).
3
A comment by the poster "franko" below, raises some good points: "The DeBeers diamond cartel invented the "custom", long ago, and the phrase "A diamond lasts forever". They also made a practice of lending lavish diamond jewelry to film studios, to connect diamonds to a perception of wealth and elegance. After all, except for industrial use, what are diamonds worth, except what we think they are?"
Diamonds? see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/23/zimbabwe-blood-diamonds
or: http://time.com/blood-diamonds/
2
Genius idea! Mr. Roosegaarde, you are brilliant!
3
Gosh,these people are pretty serious. Go have fun or something. Get an estate diamond ring and call it recycling .
7
I think it looks cool, like modern art. I hope it truly has a positive, significant impact on pollution.
3
Really interesting concept but the design falls short. Suggest they commission a better jewelry designer do come up with some interesting variations. Green design still needs to be good design or it will end up as waste.
13
Give us a break. Tacky. Cheap.
6
@Joel C
I'd rather not support blood wars & mineral cartels...
...and possibly your investments.
3
A diamond is the SAME thing.
It contains billions of carbon atoms that were once carbon dioxide a long time ago - millions of years.
The CO2 was used by plants as Food - millions of years ago.
These plants thrived on CO2 and when they died - they bacame dead organic matter - which piled up over millions of years.
This organic matter eventually got crushed as other matter piled on top of them. Over millions of years and Tons of pressure and very high temperatures - these carbon atoms realigned themselves as a rare mineral. A Diamond - chock full of Carbon atoms.
Thus - in the end - a Diamond is the SAME thing.
Also - a diamond is rare.
And a diamond is pretty.
But - To each their Own.
And I think it still symbolizes the same thing. 2 people in Love.
JDS
4
Personally I find the ring's design dreadful on an asthetic level and impractical for everyday use. What if you need to wear gloves? Or how about putting on and taking off clothes? My gorgeous diamond engagement ring was fashioned using diamonds already in my mother-in-law's possession. I think that is quite ecological. And how about buying a beautiful, antique engagement ring? Most of them would certainly be much more beautiful than this awfully designed ring with a toxic substance inside.
14
Shouldn't this be called a Smog Ring, not a Smog-Free Ring? It's got the smog right there, inside the ring.
And what about the plastic case? Isn't that a problem environmentally?
All questions aside, I wish these two a long and happy life together.
13
That's just nuts. Give me a diamond any day.
11
Nothing says "I love you" like a ring whose contents, if the container is broken, will shorten your life span!
So ... if a child swallows it, what happens?
BTW, good luck getting a glove on over that ring.
What's next? Perhaps engagement rings with liquid mercury encapsulated in them? That would also be unusual and potentially quite toxic.
15
Larger image of the ring:
http://i.imgur.com/BRWqTSP.jpg
From a 2016 press release:
https://www.studioroosegaarde.net/data/files/2017/10/34/smogfreeproject-...
4
These pollugems are a wonderful idea. They are works of Art (Art = the conscious transformation of meaning). As a card carrying romantic, I hope Mr. Roosegaarde soon finds his special someone who can appreciate the symbolism.
3
Love the concept, but what happens if it breaks and you inhale 7 years of hell? (There’s a metaphor in this).
24
No close-up of the ring? Ugh!
19
For what this jewelry is worth environmentally, and assuming it is a net environmental benefit: you should also make a clear tube-bracelet filled with the gunk. A bracelet would hold a lot more. Other matching pieces for a full set too.
3
@josh: And they could take some pollution from the Gowanus Canal to make a matching perfume.
9
Ah, the irony of long-distance air travel with its inescapable belching out of greenhouse gases at high altitudes. Just so that these ultra hip people could say that their token ring was not part of some chain of corruption like, say, a $25K rock from Van Cleef's.
15
@Tournachonadar
Among my many thoughts as well. Destination weddings, by definition, require travel. It seems likely that wherever a wedding is held these days that lots of pollution is part and parcel of the event.
Destination engagements?? For environmentally conscious people?
Distinguishing between pollution and smog?
I’m wondering what material the wedding rings will be made of.
5
As a symbolic gesture, this is thought-provoking. As an actual embodiment of an airborne hazard, I'm skeptical. Sounds more like marketing hype.
Let's assume that 1 carat (0.2 grams weight) of mostly carbon is entirely composed of hazardous pollutants. Did the creator register the material with REACH, the european toxic materials organization? If it reduced lifespan by 8 years, could I buy ten rings and kill someone? Would this even be allowed for sale anywhere if it were so hazardous?
Assuming one ring ($250) contains 0.2g carbon pollution, for an average car (30 mpg) using 400 gallons (1166kg) of gasoline per year. The carbon content of the gasoline is 981 kg. To entirely remove the carbon pollution from one person's gasoline use would require purchasing nearly 5 milion rings to fully offset the carbon contribution from this single source.
3
@emc^2 They're not claiming to capture all carbon. They're claiming to capture smog, a different pollution issue than simple greenhouse gas emissions. I would imagine smog generated per gallon gas is a much smaller percentage of total gas burned.
8
A picture of this marvelous ring would have been nice.
9
This statement bothers me: The particles in the ring are considered so dangerous that if breathed in, they can shorten an adult’s life expectancy by six to eight years.
18
@Cate And what if the case does leak?
10
Like having a cynanide pill in your engagement ring. Ew.
12
Brilliant! The only working model of carbon sequestration.
8
"India and Columbia are also in negotiations with Studio Roosegaarde to get some for their countries."
Is this statement meant to refer to the country in South America? Colombia?
21
If you drag the picture of Ms. Stein to your desktop and then zoom in on the ring, you get a vague low-res impression of what the ring looks like. Or, when reporting on a physical object that almost no one has seen before, the Times could choose to include a larger picture of the ring itself.
88
What an absolutely great idea in theory. I admit some skepticism as to its true benefits to the environment given the creator's statement that he "was shocked to discover that over half of it was carbon," and then decided to use gobs of power to turn that carbon into a diamond.
.....
Seriously? You are shocked that over half of what makes up the particulate matter of air pollution spewed from factories, power plants, and cars is carbon, the primary element of fossil fuels and other organic compounds? I'm surprised its not closer to 75%.
I get that I'm armchair QB'ing. Great job on the vacuum. Great job on raising awareness. Just saying that it might be worth having a second engineer double-check the true environmental efficiency of the plan.
20
@htg It apparently was not mushed (technically speaking) into a diamond. It's just gunk inside some unspecified clear substance.
1
Some of us opt for no rings at all. The most affordable and environmental solution. And are still happily married.
38
@CMG Yes, we have wedding bands, but we never bothered with engagement rings.
5
@CMG Yes!
1
It is possible to get a "green" wedding band, too. My husband bought me a ring from Brilliant Earth, made out of recycled metals.
I'd like to see a picture of the ring ... or a better picture of the ring before I express an opinion. If you want me to consider something like this, show me ... the ring (if not the money). Perhaps it can be used for something other than an engagement ring, but show me the ring first.
36
The symbolism is nice but how much energy is being spent pulling these pollutants out of the air? If the source of that energy is a coal fired power plant does it really make sense? I probably make a bigger difference following my wife around the house turning off the lights she leaves on. That being said, raising awareness is a good thing I guess.
17
You may want to to go to their website referenced in the article. Their claim is it uses a "miniscule" amount of "green" electricity. That's not a very quantified claim - as an engineer I like facts and numbers. Short of that, I can't evaluate either your claim or theirs but will give both of you credit for your efforts. Both efforts are small tokens, symbols if you like, that help us think of the larger picture. That's what art is all about. I like it.
13
The websites states 1170 watts.
It's all in the symbolism. Me? give me an AGS 0, 3 carat, G color, solitaire, I am more than thrilled to donate money to organizations that work for a pollution free earth. I would prefer not to wear smog. I prefer to fight smog as best as I can but I can why this appeals to some people.
14
@tekate
Since you don't want to forego a diamond, how about your heating oil - just go without heat this winter instead?
You think not wearing a diamond is too much to expect of you? Then what exactly are you willing to do in order to have a hospitable environment for your children/grandchildren? Because donating money to organizations just displaces the burden of pollution disproportionately onto the world's poor population.
4
@nom de guerre
Some people prefer jewelry, made of precious stones (myself and apparently takate too) So we should all save the environment by what? Not wearing diamonds?
2
@tekate:
Just see: Diamonds? see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/23/zimbabwe-blood-diamonds
or: http://time.com/blood-diamonds/
This was a nice story. However, it left me wondering exactly what this represents. I would be interested in learning more about: the towers; the amount of air pollution that each tower removes (relative to the amount being produced); the cost of removal; the amount of particulate matter removed by each tower (the article said "buckets"); the number of rings that could be made from each bucket. The story as written is interesting, but the technology behind the story seems even more interesting.
29
@brencklg
And what is done with all of the dangerous materials extracted and not made into rings?
Reminds me of the problems of disposing of nuclear waste. Perhaps Sweden has salt mines
3
@Lodi’s s i:
Yeah, I guess it would be better to just leave the pollutants floating around for all of us to breathe in....
1
I've been married for 47 years now and never had a ring but for a gold wedding band. My husband did gift me with a ring of gold and lapis engraved with his family crest after the wedding.
Diamonds are cold, uninspiring, and don't see why the custom ever got so widespread.
27
@Sara
The DeBeers diamond cartel invented the "custom", long ago, and the phrase "A diamond lasts forever". They also made a practice of lending lavish diamond jewelry to film studios, to connect diamonds to a perception of wealth and elegance. After all, except for industrial use, what are diamonds worth, except what we think they are?
28
@franko
great summary of how diamonds became symbols of wealth!
Also, see: Diamonds? see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/23/zimbabwe-blood-diamonds
or: http://time.com/blood-diamonds/