Methanol fuel:  that's a disappointment.  Switching a large industry from oil to an alternative fuel is a large undertaking.  Given that a few different fuels (e.g. methanol, ammonia, & hydrogen) can likely be made from fossil methane gas for a price competitive with oil, methanol is the only one of the top three that emits CO2 when burned (assuming the others are made from electricity or fossil fuel with carbon capture).

For roughly the same effort they could use carbon-free ammonia instead.  That would be doubly beneficial, since ammonia is easier than methanol to make when clean-electricity, air, & water replace the fossil fuel feed-stock.  Note that methanol and ammonia both require special handling due to toxicity, however the difficulty of transportation and storage of hydrogen make it impractical for many applications, including long-distance shipping.

[Note that the claim of reduced emissions for methanol is likely not referring to CO2, but  referring to reduced soot, since soot is chains of unburned carbon, which comes from incomplete combustion of long-chain hydrocarbons like oil and coal.  Methane and methanol molecules, of course have single carbon atoms.]

Presumably, the intent is to use "carbon neutral" methanol made from captured CO2 and green hydrogen. That's being done already -- albeit on a rather small scale -- in Iceland. One could argue that it would be better to sequester the captured CO2 and use the green hydrogen to make ammonia. That might be true, but if one wants to make ammonia, there's no reason to capture the CO2 in the first place.

I'm sure both approaches will be tried. They'll battle it out in the market. Since the world still hasn't put a robust price on carbon emissions, the winner will depend strongly on politics and subsidies.