Ocean-related options (OROs; marine renewable energy, marine carbon dioxide removal, coastal infrastructure, and fisheries adaptation) are increasingly central to climate policy, yet the evidence base underpinning their development remains fragmented and unevenly distributed. Using large language models, we collate 44,193 relevant articles from 265,436 candidates, tracing connections between ORO innovation, policy, and real-world action. Research skews toward mitigation (80% of publications, dominated by marine renewable energy), while adaptation is understudied, particularly in the Global South and small island developing states, despite these regions being most vulnerable and least responsible for climate change.
Using causal inference and network modelling, we track connections between research effort, policy, legislation, and social media interest over 2000-2024. Research effort and social media interest both directly drive ORO implementation, but their frequent misalignment implies conflicting pressures, potentially causing implementation to advance ahead of science. This highlights the role of coordinated policy with decisive implementation, which often triggers step-changes in progress.
Policy has been criticised for addressing climate change and biodiversity loss as separate, unequal challenges, despite their interconnectivity. We examine whether urgency to implement climate actions threatens biodiversity, finding that although ORO research has grown exponentially, a small and diminishing share (0.34%) addresses biodiversity impacts. These publications mostly assess impacts linked to mature technologies (e.g., offshore wind), with only 14% addressing novel technologies such as marine "geoengineering." Biodiversity conservation is increasingly framed as a nature-based climate solution, yet biodiversity itself is a diminishing priority in climate action innovation, with consequential implications if plans to upscale novel technologies proceed.

We also examine the adaptation research gap directly, searching for articles studying outcomes from implemented fisheries adaptation actions. Of 824 candidate publications, only 79 meet inclusion criteria, suggesting the adaptation literature focuses heavily on assessing risk while neglecting evaluation of outcomes. Most adaptation actions are local-scale coping strategies responding to abrupt climate shocks. Adaptive synergies outnumber trade-offs three to one, but outcomes are context-dependent and would benefit from a standardized framework for monitoring and reporting to scale adaptation to meet growing needs.

Together, these findings expose a persistent gap between the pace of ORO development and the evidence needed to guide implementation responsibly, and point to clear priorities as ocean-climate interventions scale globally: investing in research on novel technologies and biodiversity impacts, communicating science effectively, and supporting adaptation research in under-resourced regions.