Yeah, how about preventing salt-water incursion in to building foundations from destroying buildings. How about retro-fitting subway tunnels to be resistant to storm surges?
I think the problem with this is that it is very optimistic. The costs of doing all this work has to outpace (by some margin) the economic value of the asset being protected multiplied by how long the asset will be protected for. For that equation to work out positively depends on climate change being slow and gradual, not rapid and sudden.
However, the CO2 outputs and temperature rises are exponential, not linear. Because they're a function of exponential population and economic growth.
Many in-place fixed assets which are vulnerable will simply be abandoned, and the huge infra projects will never be viable (or the window of viability passed decades ago).
You are already seeing it in New York (where no serious protection plan is in place) or Miami, where you're seeing deadly apartment building collapses because they couldn't spend $15m quickly enough to do the protection work (and, of course, if the apartment block was in a poor area and less profitable, it would never be economically viable to fix the problems).
Edit: just to say though, I think you are quite right, jobs related to this will increase, just wanted to point out that the economics of many of them are complex/fraught propositions.