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 behaviors. Lord mentioned that insurers could drive behavior change and highlighted that industries are often more proactive in addressing climate change compared to governments. He emphasized that industries are more aware of climate change issues and have been more responsible in their actions, partly due to pressure from their shareholders. Lord, who works for the Brick Court Chambers in London, mentioned that insurance companies are facing pressure from activists and regulators, causing them to take the issue seriously. He has settled claims for Hurricane Katrina victims and states that insurance companies are aware of the risks and are approaching the issue with seriousness. Lord stated that insurance companies are actively interested in understanding both climate change risks and litigation risks in order to fully comprehend the implications. For example, if a homeowner has to pay higher premiums to insure a house in a flood-prone area, they are more likely to question the reasoning behind it. Lord explained that insurance companies gather detailed information to better understand risks, which can impact people's behavior. He also noted that the insurance industry, larger than oil, gas, or other major sectors, could have a significant global influence. "In fact, it is the economic power of insurers that serves as the foundation for 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 about Bangladesh laws. He emphasized that he was not an environmental or human rights lawyer and mentioned that while litigation can be used to address climate change, it may not be the most effective approach. Lord noted that as the problem of climate change worsens and many fail to see its consequences, people will likely turn to different methods to address it. He found it intriguing that the atmospheric trust litigation, which is still in its early stages, is based on ancient principles traditionally applied to assets of great importance to society, such as water. However, Lord stated that he was not aware of any instances of climate litigation. He noted 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 explained that while the issues in Bangladesh may be emotionally moving, the evidence is not as compelling. He emphasized that without strong evidence based on scientific research, it is not possible to prove causation. Therefore, the litigator concluded that the transition from a mock tribunal to a real tribunal presents complex challenges. He mentioned that a hypothetical defendant, such as the government of Bangladesh, could argue that they are already taking sufficient measures to combat climate change, pointing to the nation's low carbon footprint of 200 kilograms per capita compared to 8600 kilograms for each British citizen. Conversely, in a legal dispute between countries, the hypothetical defendant, likely a developed nation, could reject any historical responsibility by claiming they have developed similarly to Bangladesh. He expressed doubt in the ability of Bangladesh authorities to bring a case against a country like the United States. This is why some individuals have been indirectly addressing the issue by blocking permits, obtaining injunctions, or requesting environmental impact assessments for certain entities, all of which can lead to positive changes.