No one talked about Greenland's ice melting completely prior to you bringing up 15 meters. So the premise may have been yours at first, and may not have been communicated that well. In any case, it wasn't clear to me.

Part of the reason why we're talking past each other is because different time frames are colliding.

If 100% irreversible melting of Greenland's ice will occur (at, say, 6C temperature increase), this will not happen in the short term, and probably not this century either. In the case of water management, one cannot plan much further today. So that's it, and the rest is all what may be, and not relevant (yet) from an adaptation point of view.

On the longer time frame, the one you seem to be using, it's interesting stuff, but also speculative and not that helpful. It's mostly done by a lot of academics quibbling, or people getting distracted by doom scenarios because tsunamis sell enough prints. That's all there is, and nothing more. 15 meters? It could be 20. So what as long as we don't know when it will happen?

I said nothing about Greenland melting completely or becoming prime estate. I said it was a climate winner. Any heating of that dreadful place will make it a nicer place to live, and will make petroleum and mineral exploitation less of a hassle.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.