Not really. It depends if in looking at alternative fuels you choose to prioritise direct economic outcomes (CO2 emissions excluded) or climate change (CO2e reduction benefits).
A third choice is to ignore both as transport is an enabling technology and the end justifies the means. There is no need to consider either. Style, power and noise are all enabling features to be considered ahead of cost.
This may help to explain the recent spin from the Prime Minister for Marketing and references to any 26%-28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions only mentioning the electricity sector. Perhaps only the domestic consumption portion? Nothing about transport.
The heavy lifting if it is to be done in transport appears to also have been left to the consumer. Pick a fuel, pick a new technology. Even Brisbane’s bus fleet which had a signficant CNG (Natural Gas) powered fleet has moved back to diesel power!
Technology aside the economic considerations appear to be still in favour of no change. A liquid fuel whether hydrogen at pressure, ammonia, electrolytes or similar that offers easy quick refueling would appear to be the easy option. If it offers better power that is great. If it is lower cost that is great. If it offers better power, convenience and low cost does the carbon footprint matter? Probably very little to a market economy.
In a market economy the alternatives to petroleum and diesel fuels will need to compete against the untaxed cost of these products. That the cartel in oil supply can as it chooses up volume and lower prices is demonstrated in recent history. Just how low they will go before they cease production might be the key factor in how cheap alternative fuels need to be. This is very cheap given the alternatives need varying amounts of investment in new technology and distribution.
On one count electric battery power has an edge other than the very expensive battery technology and weight penalties.
On the other hydrogen fuel whether for fuel cells or a multicylce combustion heat recovery system appears an easier drop in to existing vehicle designs.
Neither (personal view) are green low carbon solutions. How well they meet the criteria of low carbon depends on how the fuel source is produced and the environmental overhead of manufacture of each.
In looking for other options it is easy to find other already developed and more sustainable alternatives including bipedal motion and circular bipedal motion. If only you could get carbon credits for using them? Currently the average bipedal motor under Australian operating conditions produces 22t annually of CO2e greenhouse gases. Annually over 10,000km that’s approx 220gm/km or slightly worse than a Toyota Prius. There is plenty of upside though if you look at other users.
Notably in the UK the average bipedal motor under similar conditions produces approx 7t annually of CO2e. It’s not clear if this is due to low mileage, differences in energy production (more kippers?), or the weather? Some of the Scandinavian nations extract even better performance, although France still leads the way with endurance testing.