There should be ~ $250/barrel cost added to the market price to account for externalities (barrel of oil releases 0.43 tons of co2 and avg social cost of carbon from https://arxiv.org/html/2402.09125v3 is $500+/ton)
The dependence, of literally almost everything, on the continuous flow of oil from few parts of the world has been an obvious point of strangulation for longer than I've been alive.
I mean, I understand that it's so entrenched that politics is owned by it, but, hell, it's been, what a week and a bit, and already Australian media is trying to talk down panic about petrol shortages.
The blind leading the blind.
And of course mitigating the climate catastrophe should be much more entrenched, there's vastly more voters whose lives will be impacted by it than by fortunes of the oil business.
The other block in contrast are advocating in favor of fossil fuel industries, but are mixed (some in favor, some against) in regard to thermal power stations, and primarily promotes nuclear for the grid. They are also those that usually bring up national security and energy independence, with reduce dependencies on energy trading to maintain the grid. That block voted against the decision to define natural gas as green.
So the political state in EU is that one block promotes fossil fuel in the grid, and the other promotes it in the industries and transportation. We need to be rapidly phasing out fossils usage to mitigate the climate catastrophe, but no side is really willing to give up on what those fossil fuels enable, and that is despite the now many years of wars that have major impact on economy and security.