 Insurance companies can drive positive changes towards more environment-friendly behaviour, an expert has said. Richard Lord, a commercial litigator and an observer of the Oxfam's mock climate tribunal, on Sunday said, "Insurers could drive behaviour change." Specialising in insurance claims for over 20 years, Lord added, "In many ways, industries are much ahead of governments in dealing with climate change." He told bdnews24.com that unlike government, industries are more aware of climate change and have acted far more responsibly. "There is pressure from their shareholders. There is pressure from the activists. And then there are the regulators." "Insurance companies are taking this quite seriously," said Lord, who works for the Brick Court Chambers in London. His recent experiences include settling claims related to Hurricane Katrina victims. "They are quite serious about the issue simply because they have to be aware of all the risks." Lord said that the insurance companies have an active interest in understanding climate change risks and also litigation risk so that they fully understand the implications. "So, for instance, if a homeowner has to pay higher premiums for insuring a house because it is in an area prone to flooding, then that individual is more likely to question the reasons behind it." Lord says that insurances go about collecting such information in as much detail as possible so they can understand the risk better, which has an impact on people's behaviour. He also mentioned that the insurance industry being larger than oil, gas or other typically large sectors, could have significant influence across the world. "Indeed, it is the economic muscle of insurers that really underpins a huge amount of commercial life." Regarding the tribunal that he has come to observe, the commercial litigator was reluctant to comment on the issue because of his unfamiliarity with Bangladesh laws. Stressing that he was not an environmental or human rights lawyer, Lord pointed out that although litigation was one of the tools to address climate change, it was perhaps quite a blunt one. "But increasingly, as the problem worsens and the failure to perceive its consequence in many quarters continues, people will inevitably take to different ways to address climate change." He said it was interesting to see that the 'still infant' atmospheric trust litigation invokes certain ancient principles, traditionally applied to "assets of such fundamental importance to society as a whole that right to those assets is considered inalienable, that the government is the sovereign owner and must act to protect them". "This has typically been used for natural assets like water." However, Lord said there were no such cases of climate litigation that he was aware of. "Many nations enshrine the right to clean environment in their constitutions directly, or indirectly, through the reference to more general rights or under human rights." He explained that the problems of Bangladesh, although moving in the emotional sense, are not so compelling in terms of evidence. "And without such compelling evidence, based on scientific research, it would not be possible to establish a cause and effect." Thus, the litigator explained, this kind of mock tribunal turning into a real tribunal brings up complicated issues. He said that the notional defendant, Bangladesh government for instance, could easily turn around and tell the plaintiff that it is already doing enough to prevent climate change, citing the nation's low carbon footprint of 200 kilograms of carbon per head compared to 8600kgs for every British citizen. "On the other hand, a legal action between nations could see the notional defendant, presumably a developed country, shrug off any historical responsibility, claiming that it has developed in the same manner that Bangladesh seeks." "I can't say, I see a mechanism under which the Bangladesh authorities could readily bring a case against the government of, say, the United States." "That is perhaps one of the reasons that people have been approaching the matter indirectly by blocking permits and brining injunctions or demanding environmental impact assessments of certain entities, which in a way are also affecting positive changes."