Why go from A to B to C when A is all we need?

The Independent had an interesting story this morning under the headline:
The scientists who turned fresh air into petrol
A bunch called Air Fuel Synthesis up in Stockton does this alchemy by:

a. producing hydrogen from water and air by electrical hydrolysis

b. grabbing carbon dioxide from the air and combining it with the hydrogen to produce methanol

c. using the methanol to produce petrol for cars and aviation fuel for planes

The new bit is b. a and c have been done commercially for some time.
But grabbing the carbon dioxide is tricky, inefficient and expensive. Air Fuel Synthesis have produced five litres of petrol in two months. They hope to make this operation more efficient and cheaper, but that could take several years.
Why bother? We can power vehicles using hydrogen now. London has a fleet of hydrogen-powered buses and Honda have a fuel-cell car which works a treat and is waiting only for a few hydrogen pumps to appear alongside the unleaded ones at your local filling station.
Why spend years developing refineries to turn hydrogen into petrol to feed our present gas-guzzlers when all we need is a few new tanks and tankers?
It is suggested that capturing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will slow global warming. Not if we put it straight back into the atmosphere by driving to Tesco.
I know everybody hates change, but it is surely less of a change to put liquid hydrogen into your car from a pump and drive off than it is to plug an electric car into a socket, wait eight hours and then drive off.