An expert, Richard Lord, who specializes in insurance claims and has observed Oxfam's mock climate tribunal, stated that insurance companies have the potential to encourage more environmentally friendly behavior. Lord emphasized that insurers have the ability to drive behavior change and are often more proactive in dealing with climate change compared to governments. He noted that industries are more aware of climate change and have taken more responsible actions due to pressure from their shareholders. Lord, who works at Brick Court Chambers in London, mentioned that insurance companies are facing pressure from activists and regulators regarding the issue. He highlighted that the companies are taking this matter seriously, especially after dealing with claims from Hurricane Katrina victims. Lord emphasized that insurance companies are vigilant about understanding and managing all potential risks involved. Lord stated that insurance companies are actively interested in comprehending the risks associated with climate change and litigation in order to fully grasp the implications. He explained that if a homeowner has to pay higher insurance premiums for a house located in a flood-prone area, they are likely to question the reasoning behind it. Lord emphasized that insurers gather detailed information to better understand risks, which can impact people's behavior. He also noted that the insurance industry, being larger than oil, gas, or other major sectors, could have a significant influence globally. "In fact, it is the economic power of insurers that largely supports a vast amount of commercial activity." The commercial litigator who came to observe the tribunal was hesitant to comment on the issue due to his lack of knowledge of Bangladesh laws. He emphasized that he was not an environmental or human rights lawyer and mentioned that litigation was a tool to address climate change, albeit a blunt one. Lord noted that as the problem of climate change worsens and many fail to recognize its consequences, people will seek different ways to tackle it. He found it intriguing that the atmospheric trust litigation, which he described as still in its infancy, draws upon ancient principles that have been traditionally applied to natural assets like water, considering them essential to society and protected by the government. Lord mentioned that he was not aware of any climate litigation cases. He pointed out that many countries include the right to a clean environment in their constitutions either directly or indirectly through human rights references. He also noted that while the issues in Bangladesh are emotionally moving, they lack compelling evidence to establish cause and effect scientifically. Therefore, he explained that without strong scientific evidence, it would be difficult to turn a mock tribunal into a real tribunal, as it raises complex issues. He mentioned that in a hypothetical legal scenario, the defendant, such as the Bangladesh government, could argue that they are already taking sufficient measures to combat climate change by pointing out their low carbon footprint compared to other nations. On the other hand, a developed country could deflect any blame by stating they have developed similarly to Bangladesh. He expressed uncertainty about how Bangladesh could bring a case against a country like the United States. Due to this difficulty, people have been indirectly addressing the issue by blocking permits, obtaining injunctions, or requesting environmental impact assessments, which are also leading to positive changes.