I haven't missed any points, I've simply written what he is arguing. He is arguing that New York will not, in fact, be gone in 30 years, because it will have adapted just like Miami and Amsterdam. So too will other places.

Regardless, the premises of both your and his argument are weak. The idea that Miami will be six meters underwater in 30 years is not based on actual observations about sea level rises (which are utterly tiny and very stable), but are based on computational models that are programmed to assume massive and very fast feedback loops that end with the poles melting all at once.

We all learned a lot about how much academia cares about model reliability during COVID (they don't care, at all). Although the HSBC exec doesn't directly challenge climate models (only central bank risk models and the priorities assigned to them), models of all kinds have long histories of being wrong. Climatologists tend to respond to this by actually editing the historical record to make it appear as if they were correct retroactively, which is completely unscientific. This sort of behavior might be why the markets don't seem to acknowledge climate risk existing, which is a part of the guy's point.