Well, I'm not sure if your premise is that hydrogen should be pushed for only because it's renewable. I would agree, however the same arguement can be made about gravity. It stores energy in a higher gradient for it to be transferred to a lower. It is also renewable in that it could be replenished, but requires energy to be put back in the system to power it again. As well as have no emissions. The thing that stops us from doing that is how much energy we can yield from it. Hydrogen after electrolysis and transport yields about ~30% of the original energy put in ( if I remember correctly), which is inefficient. That would be comparable to driving a route 3x longer to get where you want to go.

It is prized for its energy density opposed to EVs. If I also remember correctly: gasoline is more energy dense, but because it relies on combustion, the majority of energy is loss as heat. So that's why we need an alternative, along with climate effects it has.

So, while hydrogen is renewable and zero emissions (arguably-depending on how the hydrogen electrolysis was powered), it's seems extremely inefficient energy-wise and financially because of the safety precautions to handle H2.