-Table 4 title is wrong. It says “Impact … on climate risk,” but the dependent variable is environmental degradation. Which is correct?
-Significance stars are systematically incorrect. Examples: Table 4 full sample green finance = −0.003 (SE 0.011), not significant but marked ***; developed green finance = −0.005 (0.009), not significant but ***; Table 5 Europe green finance = −0.004 (0.023), not significant but ***; Asia green finance = 0.013 (0.024), not significant but ***.
-Lagged dependent variable is implausible and inconsistent. Table 5 Asia = 1.005*** > 1 (explosive), while Europe = 0.102 and North America = 0.042, but Table 4 developed countries = 0.973. Europe and North America are subsets of developed countries. Explain this contradiction.
-Sample count is inconsistent. The text lists 12 countries, but Table 4 reports 13 ids. One developed country is missing from the list (likely Japan, which appears in Asia). Clarify the full sample.
-Sample period is inconsistent. Text says 2005–2022 (18 years), but observations (13 × 17 = 221) indicate 17 years. Which years are actually used?
-Descriptive statistics are implausible. Log CO₂ per capita SD = 0.062; financial development SD = 0.03. Such tiny variation across 13 countries over 17 years is not credible. Check units/transformations.
-Table 6 is missing entirely. Section 4.4 draws conclusions about the US, UK, and China from Table 6, but the table is not in the paper. Provide it.
-Table 7 is garbled and unreadable. Coefficients and standard errors are jumbled. Also, PCSE is not a valid robustness check for GMM because it does not address endogeneity. Clarify.
-Eq. (7) is erroneous. The first line uses IGF as the dependent variable and omits ENVGD; the second line is identical to Eq. (1). This is not a valid PCSE procedure.
-GMM specification is incomplete. No instrument count, lag limits, collapse, or Windmeijer correction. With only 13 cross-sections, instrument proliferation can invalidate the Hansen test. Report these.
-Discussion contradicts the tables. Text calls Europe green finance and Asia green finance “statistically significant” when they are not. Correct the text or the tables.
-Abstract overclaims. It states green finance and financial development significantly reduce degradation in developed countries, but Table 4 shows both coefficients insignificant for developed countries. Correct the abstract and conclusions.
