• Max Burgers is selling less beef to address the climate crisis.
• The chain labels menu items with carbon footprints and promotes chicken and plant-based burgers.
• Between 2015 and 2021, emissions dropped 30% and meals without red meat grew to 18% of sales.

One of Sweden's oldest burger chains wants its customers to stop eating so much red meat. 

It might sound counterintuitive, but Max Burgers, a family-owned fast-food company, realized way back in 2007 that it couldn't address the climate crisis while continuing to sell as much beef. Beef has the largest climate impact of any food, largely because cows burp methane and need vast amounts of land.

Since then, Max Burgers has labeled menu items with their carbon footprints and started offering a lot more chicken and plant-based burgers. The company wants half the meals it sells to be free of red meat. It came close last year, when about 46% of meals sold across 188 locations in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Poland were red-meat-free, said Kaj Török, its chief sustainability officer. Denmark on its own surpassed the goal.

All the changes are making a dent in the chain's greenhouse-gas emissions, which dropped by 30% between 2015 and 2021. Török said Max Burgers has remained one of Sweden's most profitable restaurant chains, even as plant-based, vegetarian, or "lacto-vegetarian" options with dairy products grew to 18% of sales volume in 2021, up from 2% in 2014. 

"Until we hit the pandemic, the transformation was really fast. In the last 12 months, we've struggled to keep that percentage up," Török said, adding that he thinks customers may be choosing meat because they see it as getting more for their money during a period of high inflation.

Now the company, which is privately owned and doesn't disclose its financial information, is exploring how to communicate the health benefits of a plant-based diet.

Max Burgers' climate strategy is an outlier in the restaurant industry, particularly compared with US fast-food chains that have been quick to abandon plant-based burgers when they don't test well in small markets. Even the salad chain Sweetgreen this month added steak to its menu in hopes of boosting sales at dinnertime. A Los Angeles vegan restaurant also announced in April that it was rebranding by adding meat, dairy, and eggs to the menu.

Both Sweetgreen and the Los Angeles restaurant, now called Sage Regenerative Kitchen & Brewery, said they were focusing on "regenerative agriculture" to meet their climate commitments. Fast-food giants like McDonald's, Taco Bell, and Burger King are similarly focused on the farming practices in their supply chains.

But research is limited on the climate effects of regenerative agriculture, a loosely defined set of farming practices that aims to improve soil health so it stores more carbon, uses less chemical fertilizers and water, and boosts biodiversity.

Raychel Santo, a food and climate research associate at World Resources Institute, told Business Insider that while storing more carbon in the soil may offset some emissions from beef production, it's unlikely to offset all the emissions from a cow's life cycle. 

"There are a few studies that have even claimed carbon-negative or carbon-neutral beef, but they've only looked at the last phase of the cow's life," Santo said. 

She cited an analysis by her colleagues of research comparing the environmental effects of conventional livestock production, where cows end up on a feedlot, with "alternative" practices such as organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed, and regenerative. The analysis found that alternative practices tended to have higher total climate footprints (but better animal welfare) than conventional ones. 

"That's not to say conventional systems are better," Santo said. "It's about balancing and recognizing these trade-offs."

Santo said that either way, people in wealthy countries need to reduce their beef consumption for the world to meet its climate goals. In the US and Europe, people eat the equivalent of three and two burgers a week, respectively. Cutting that consumption in half would make a huge dent in planet-warming emissions.

Török said 'less but better beef' is the mantra of researchers he's spoke to.

He added that because Max Burgers is family-owned, it can take more risks than publicly-traded fast food chains worried about their stock price.

MAX Burgers has introduced many iterations of plant-based and chicken options to improve the taste, and scrapped those that didn't land with customers. A falafel burger launched in 2009 was eliminated several years later because it wasn't popular with consumers, for example. In 2016, the company quintupled its plant-based options, Török said, including a "green burger" that's been changed several times.

"Taste is our secret climate weapon," Török said. "If something doesn't work, we try to make it better."

• Trump vowed to commute Ross Ulbricht's sentence at the Libertarian National Convention.
• Libertarians view Ulbricht's life sentence as a symbol of government overreach.
• Trump also promised to include a Libertarian in his cabinet if elected.

Donald Trump made an address at the Libertarian National Convention on Saturday, promising to commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the jailed founder of the infamous online drug marketplace Silk Road.

"If you vote for me, on Day One, I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht," Trump declared to enthusiastic applause from the crowd in Washington, DC. 

The move to highlight Ulbricht was strategically catered to Libertarian voters.

Ulbricht, now 40, who was imprisoned for life in 2015, is a hero of the US libertarian movement.

The Libertarian Party, with its long-standing advocacy for drug legalization and criminal justice reform, has consistently lobbied for Ulbricht's release, viewing his life sentence as a symbol of government overreach.

Ulbricht became interested in libertarian values at university, according to a Wired report, where he discovered the ideas of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, an advocate of the moral purpose of free-market capitalism and staunch opponent of interventionism. Ulbricht embraced these ideas of uncompromised freedom, per Wired.

"When I created Silk Road, I wasn't seeking financial gain," Ulbricht's wrote in a heartfelt letter to the trial judge in 2015.

"I created Silk Road because I believed at the time that people should have the right to buy and sell whatever they wanted so long as they weren't hurting anyone else," he wrote.

In 2015, he was given life in prison without the possibility of parole. He was also fined $183,961,921.

Ulbricht is being held at the United States Penitentiary in Tucson.

The majority of goods sold on Silk Road were illegal hardcore drugs, said the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York at his trial.

"Silk Road was supposed to be about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, to pursue their own happiness," wrote Ulbricht. "While I still don't think people should be denied this right, I never sought to create a site that would provide another avenue for people to feed their addictions."

Trump, who was loudly booed and heckled during much of his speech at the Libertarian National Convention, did manage to partially win the audience around by committing to free Ulbricht.

Katherine Yeniscavich, a Libertarian Party national committee member, told Politico, "It's one of the things we wanted from his first term."

In addition to the Ulbricht pledge, Trump made further pledges, promising to include a Libertarian in his cabinet and others in senior administrative positions if elected.

Correction: May 30, 2024 — Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story called Ross Ulbricht "unjustly imprisoned" without making clear it was characterizing the view of his supporters.

• This post originally appeared in the Insider Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here.

Almost Friday! You'll likely never be as rich as Nvidia's Jensen Huang, but you can start to write emails like him. More on his "TL;DR approach."

It's the last day of our Memorial Day sale for 80% off a Business Insider subscription.

In today's big story, we're looking at the wave of talent-focused deals set to shake up the AI startup market.

What's on deck:

• Markets: The biggest threat to obesity drug makers could be South Park.
• Tech: Why is a popular email service still stuck in the Stone Age? It's time to fix Gmail.
• Business: The workplace habits that annoy the hell out of your boss.

But first, forget the milk; we'll take the whole cow.

---

If this was forwarded to you, sign up here.

---

The big story

M&A(I)

In the age of AI, if you can't hire them, acquire them.

Few things are more coveted in business nowadays than AI specialists. Everyone wants to supercharge their business with generative AI.

But with only so many AI specialists, the talent doesn't come easy. Compensation is steep — seven-figure pay packages — and competition is even fiercer. You know it's serious when Mark Zuckerberg is getting involved in recruiting.

So why worry about one AI specialist when you can get a company full of them?

The future of the AI industry could be a wave of "acquihires," writes Business Insider's Rebecca Torrence and Riddhi Kanetkar, who mapped out potential buyers and sellers in the space.

The M&A(I) industry is already off to a hot start this year, with 55 exits for AI startups in the first quarter, according to Crunchbase data.

And it's not just cutting-edge tech companies that are shopping. Acquihires give non-tech companies a chance to jumpstart an AI strategy that'd be difficult to stand up otherwise.

Acquihires come with plenty of risks.

Deals can be tricky in the best of circumstances, let alone in an overvalued market with high interest rates.

Companies looking to cut a deal are also flying a bit blind. VCs eagerness to back AI startups means there are plenty of companies big on valuation but little on substance.

And then there's the risk the people acquired aren't a good fit.

Technologists have the luxury of being particular about their work culture. Remember when OpenAI employees weren't pumped about potentially working at Microsoft amid the Altman ouster?

But some startups might not have a choice if funding gets tight and an acquihire is their only option. And if that's the case, that's a problem, Julia Gudish Krieger, a managing partner at Pari Passu Venture Partners, told me.

She's rarely seen acquihires work because the motivation for the deal is often more about getting a soft landing than having a passion for the product they'll be promoting or building in their new roles.

"If there are real synergies and the incoming group is genuinely excited to roll up their sleeves and help co-create, then I'm sure an acquihire can be magic in theory," Gudish Krieger said. "But this is easier said than done."

---

3 things in markets

1. Oh my god! They killed Novo Nordisk! South Park's latest Ozempic storyline could be bad news for obesity drug makers and their investors. Publicly traded US companies prominently featured on the comedy show have gone on to underperform the S&P 500.
2. The stock market and the economy are going their separate ways. Corporate earnings show continued growth despite a GDP slowdown. While rare, the divergence of the two typically means a great environment for investors. The S&P 500 has historically delivered average quarterly returns of 3.6% when that happens.
3. Don't expect stocks to slow down in June, according to Fundstrat. The always-optimistic Tom Lee sees the stock market rising 4% next month. Continued disinflation coupled with lots of cash sitting on the sidelines means the market has more room to run despite reaching record highs. Here's what else has him so bullish.

---

3 things in tech

1. Summer fit check: tech edition. In a wild turn of events, tech executives are grabbing (good) attention for their style. Fashion experts shared how tech workers can upgrade their often monotone wardrobes.
2. Gmail is stuck in the Stone Age. When Google introduced the tabbed inbox in 2013, it was a game changer. There was finally a way to separate important emails from the clutter. But in the decade since, Gmail has failed to keep up.
3. Apple comes under pressure. A group of French trade associations have implored CEO Tim Cook to halt the rollout of a new "web eraser" feature, over fears it could have a catastrophic impact on the online advertising industry. The tool would allow Safari users to remove unwanted content like ads, text, and images from webpages.

---

3 things in business

1. A bizarre government rule is preventing young men from getting jobs. America's young men aren't working. Recessions and low wages could be to blame, but our broken unemployment system might ultimately be making employers reluctant to hire them.
2. Your boss probably thinks you're annoying, too. As much as your boss gets on your nerves, chances are you're not completely innocent. From complaining to asking too many questions, career experts shared with BI the employee behaviors that drive bosses crazy.
3. Elon Musk in the White House? Donald Trump and the Tesla CEO have discussed a potential advisory role if the ex-president wins November's presidential election, The Wall Street Journal reported. Trump could give Musk input on border security and economic policies, per the outlet.

---

In other news

• The real reason Americans can't get enough sleep.
• Inside Henrik Fisker's staff meeting, where the CEO announced more layoffs hitting his electric car company.
• Biden's $1 billion weapons package to Israel is coming back to haunt him.
• A software engineer worked at Tesla, SAP, and Salesforce. Here's how he negotiated his salary, including a $520,000 Meta offer.
• We had cellphones, then feature phones, then smartphones. Now, 'IntelliPhones' are coming.
• A millennial who had a mini-retirement at 38 shares her strategies for achieving financial independence — and why she wants to return to the workforce.

---

What's happening today

• Today's earnings: Costco, Best Buy, and other companies are reporting.

---

The Insider Today team: Dan DeFrancesco, deputy editor and anchor, in New York. Jordan Parker Erb, editor, in New York. Hallam Bullock, editor, in London. George Glover, reporter, in London. Grace Lett, associate editor, in Chicago.

• Congressional Staff for a Ceasefire Now is a group of more than 150 Capitol Hill staffers.
• One organizer told BI they've protested on Capitol Hill to amplify their constituents' voices.
• They also say the organizing has given staff an excuse to stay during an otherwise difficult time.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with an organizer involved with Congressional Staff for a Ceasefire Now, a group of Capitol Hill staffers pressuring lawmakers to support a cease-fire in Gaza. The staffer has been granted anonymity in order to speak freely without fear of retaliation from their office. This essay has been edited for length and clarity.

At the end of October, when we saw how Israel was beginning to conduct its war in Gaza, I and several other staffers on Capitol Hill were really, really concerned.

We had heard from thousands upon thousands of constituents who were writing to us, emailing us, calling us, and commenting on our offices' social media accounts, urging our bosses to call for a cease-fire in Gaza.

There was initially just a group of four or five of us that were ready to do something, which gradually grew to a group of roughly a dozen staffers.

Our first major action was a flower vigil on the House steps on November 7, one month after the Hamas attack on Israel. The goal was to directly confront lawmakers with the fact that there is dissent among their staff with how they are handling this, while making it clear that we don't stand by our bosses' decisions to whitewash this and to look the other way.

We recognized not just the civilian lives lost in Gaza, but also the 1,200 civilian lives lost in Israel during the horrible attacks on October 7. We laid 10,000 flowers — one for each civilian in both Israel and Gaza who had been killed at that point.

Our group has since grown to more than 150 staffers, and we've taken several other actions and demonstrations. In February, after the US cut off funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), we held a fundraiser that brought in more than $8,500. We've also read the names of more than 300 infants who've been killed in Gaza.

This month, we marched to the steps of the Capitol before a vote on a bill to force President Joe Biden to provide withheld aid to Israel, insisting that Congress try to save Rafah instead.

During our public demonstrations, many of us — including me — wear items such as masks or sunglasses in order to maintain our anonymity.

My boss is largely convinced that they're right on most things. But they've been willing to listen.

I work for a House Democrat who has endorsed Biden's plan for a negotiated, two-sided cease-fire — but that's absolutely not far enough.

I believe Israel has not only an obligation but a responsibility to unilaterally implement a cease-fire and conduct itself differently in this conflict if they actually are hoping to secure hostages and eliminate Hamas.

I also believe that somewhere between one-third to one-half of the more than 90 lawmakers who have called for a cease-fire — including my boss — have used that term under pressure, and use varying definitions of the term that avoid placing the responsibility on Israel to actually secure one.

There are varying degrees to which lawmakers are willing to listen to their staffers on this issue. My own boss is stubborn and largely convinced that they're right on most things, but they've been willing to listen, which I admire them for. To that end, we've had several staff-level conversations over the last several months.

Recently, I told my boss that they should be focusing more on the reality on the ground today rather than just continuing to harken back to October 7.

Some senior staff in my office seem to know I'm involved with this effort — and they've made comments here and there to prove it. But I'm almost positive that the lawmaker I work for doesn't know, and that if they did, there would be genuine repercussions.

If they're not listening to us in our offices, we have to find a way to get through to them.

Some people say that it's not our place as staff to be doing any of this, and that it's simply our job to carry out our boss's wishes.

When it's constituents saying this, I understand: They don't understand exactly how congressional offices work, they don't know how Congress functions. But I think it is an argument in bad faith when it's made by other staffers or by lawmakers.

We are the people engaging with constituents. Members of Congress aren't on the phones, do not respond to emails, and do not respond to social media comments in almost all cases. We have seen an unprecedented influx of constituent sentiment in support of a cease-fire, and in some lawmakers' offices, that sentiment is not being listened to at the most senior level.

So if they're not listening to us at our offices, we have to find a way to get through to them.

We want to show that at all levels of our government — from civilians, to staffers, to administration officials, to military members who have resigned in protest of this conflict and the way it's being handled — there is dissent, and there is a price to pay for not listening to your constituents.

If there's a sliver of a chance that you can make a difference, I believe you have a duty to stay.

Others might say that if we don't agree with what our bosses are doing then we should quit. But it's not that simple.

If you're high profile enough where you can make a national story by quitting at the State Department, the White House, or the military, that can be a really important and impactful decision to make.

But if you're an office where there is even a sliver of a chance of making a difference, I believe you have a duty to stay there. You don't know who's going to step in and replace you in that job. You don't know if they're going to hire someone who just does not believe in the humanity of the Palestinian people.

Personally, I haven't considered resigning, but I've drawn personal lines for myself: I won't write content that I feel is grossly out of line with the human values that I support.

Thankfully, I work in an office where — slowly but surely — it seems like the ship is turning. Even though I think my boss is turning a blind eye to more things that I'm comfortable with, I continue to believe that their mind is still changing and is not rigid on this. That is enough for me to see a reason to stay on.

For the most part, staff are not wholly responsible, or even largely responsible, for the votes that their bosses take.

We have already made an impact

One thing that's been really reassuring for me is how cross-cutting this issue is, especially at a time when politics is more polarized than ever.

We've had Democrats and Republicans at some of our House protests, as well as Israelis and Palestinians, people who are Jewish or Muslim, who are every religion and identity in between.

I think that staff action, and demonstrating how constituents are feeling about this issue, is responsible for having so many members of Congress not only calling for cease-fire in one way one form or another, but actually being comfortable for the very first time in history with the idea of conditioning aid to Israel.

We've given staff the courage to speak up in their offices and to have those kinds of conversations with their bosses. And I think that we have been essential to providing staff an excuse to stay in a time when working in this institution is incredibly difficult.

Unless and until the government is responding to constituents, we continue to plan to be their voice in the halls of power.