Because oceanfront property, especially on the east coast is almost entirely in the hands of wealthy (read: politically influential) people, who throw a shitfit at the thought of offshore wind farms.
And, for the rigs, they are actually substantially closer to shore than turbines would be on the other coast, because, as you say, the ocean gets real deep, real fast there.
People do dislike the rigs, but new ones are banned and the ones off Santa Barbra are I think tapping a source that bubbles up on its own and washes ashore. So perhaps they are helping.
it's not that rich people don't mind oil rigs, it's that the power gradient goes oil companies -> rich people -> clean energy companies.
Either prospect smells strongly of malfeasance to me.
[1] https://owcltd.com/the-case-of-california-757m-auction-close...
[2] https://www.times-standard.com/2022/06/04/challenges-face-wi...
Better still: do both and put up more wind power.
Europe never had that luxury. Offshore wind is our only option.
This kind of depends on where in Europe. The North of Sweden (i.e the top 2/3 of the country) is very sparsely populated, and well-suited for installing on-shore wind power.
NIMBYs keep on NIMBYing though, and many projects get killed because of their protesting.
Restricting yourself to offshore wind is a choice, not a necessity.