Curtis, Fisch, and Robertson's article, Do ESG Mutual Funds Deliver on Their Promises, is a timely and insightful piece with several important conclusions. This Comment offers three principal observations to add to the commentary on the article: (1) Securities and Exchange Commission regulations that would require stricter definitions and more robust disclosure are important for the health and legitimization of the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) market; (2) climate risk is financial risk—investors want to make money, and the ESG market is providing them with an opportunity to do so; and (3) despite the positive results identified by studies like that conducted by Curtis et al., at the state level, several problematic bills have been passed to restrict investment practices by prohibiting the consideration of ESG and other factors, and these bills are projected to cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In short, the Comment asserts that the Curtis et al. article is an important contribution to our understanding of the importance and effects of ESG investing, and that policymakers at the federal and state levels would do well to allow financial disclosure to do what it does best: enable investors to make informed choices to reduce financial risk, which these days must include climate risks.