An expert, Richard Lord, who is a commercial litigator and observer of Oxfam's mock climate tribunal, stated that insurance companies have the potential to promote environmentally friendly behavior. Lord, who has specialized in insurance claims for over two decades, highlighted that industries are often more proactive in addressing climate change compared to governments. He emphasized that industries are more conscious of climate change and have taken more responsible actions, partly due to pressure from their shareholders. Activists and regulators are both exerting pressure on insurance companies, causing them to take the issue seriously. Lord, who works at Brick Court Chambers in London, has dealt with settling claims for Hurricane Katrina victims, giving him insight into the seriousness with which insurance companies are approaching the issue due to the need to be aware of all risks. Lord mentioned that insurance companies are actively interested in comprehending climate change risks and potential litigation risks in order to fully grasp the implications. For example, if a homeowner has to pay higher premiums for insuring a house in a flood-prone area, they are likely to question the reasons behind it. Lord explained that insurance companies gather detailed information to better understand risks, which can impact people's behavior. He also highlighted that the insurance industry, larger than oil, gas, or other major sectors, could wield significant influence globally. Lord emphasized that insurers' economic power underpins a large portion 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 about Bangladesh laws. He emphasized that he was not an environmental or human rights lawyer, and mentioned that litigation was just one tool to address climate change, albeit a somewhat blunt one. Lord noted that as the problem of climate change worsens and some people continue to ignore its consequences, alternative methods to address the issue will likely be pursued. He found it interesting to see the atmospheric trust litigation, which he described as a relatively new concept invoking ancient principles that have traditionally applied to assets deemed essential to society, such as water. However, Lord stated that he was not aware of any cases of climate litigation. He mentioned that many countries include the right to a clean environment in their constitutions either directly or indirectly through references to broader rights or human rights. Lord also pointed out that while the issues in Bangladesh may be emotionally moving, they lack compelling evidence based on scientific research to establish a clear cause and effect. Therefore, the litigator explained that turning a mock tribunal into a real tribunal raises complex issues. He mentioned that the hypothetical 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 of 200 kilograms per person, compared to 8600kgs for each British citizen. Alternatively, in a legal dispute between nations, the hypothetical defendant, most likely a developed country, could deny any historical responsibility by claiming that they have developed in a similar way to how Bangladesh is striving to. He expressed uncertainty about how the Bangladesh authorities could bring a case against a government like the United States. This is why many have been addressing the issue indirectly by blocking permits, issuing injunctions, or calling for environmental impact assessments for certain entities, which are also leading to positive changes.