I've yet to hear a solid case for hydrogen. The cheapest method of production (today) is steam reformation of natural gas, which produces additional CO2 while at the same time ending up with a product that costs about 3-4x a much as the equivalent amount of gasoline.

Large-scale hydrogen production via water electrolysis requires a huge amount of power that's also not necessarily obtained from green/renewable resources.

Japan's nuclear experiment is promising, but entails more nuclear construction which is problematic in today's climate and still has extremely long lead times.

And all of that's for uncompressed hydrogen. Compressing it and keeping it cold for storage and distribution adds still more to the final cost at the "pump".

Hydrogen fuel cells vehicles had many of the scarce mineral problems of current BEVs, while still requiring fuel. HICEVs require (basically) a new engine and components and would typically only available in new vechicles.

Helping the poor of the world by making them buy new vehicles and fuel that's 3-4x as expensive? Not seeing it.

E-fuels are another matter, but the primary recommended means of production comes from direct carbon capture. In effect, something that's supposedly CO2 neutral, but still ends up burning and releasing that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Sequestration, at least, removes it.

The argument that solar and wind are vulnerable to climate change and component forces is a non-starter. ALL solutions (including building a brand new nationwide hydrogen production and distribution network from scratch) are susceptible to those same forces.

Finally, the modern world (US/Europe/etc) has the largest carbon footprint per capita and as such any change or reductions made there have a disproportionate effect on the final outcome.

Which in turn puts the costs of the solution on those best equipped to bear them.