Road restrictions aimed to cut pollution in Delhi have again failed to show any noticeable impact of personal cars on pollution. The only clear winners in the unscientific and unpopular scheme are the often-unscrupulous people who drive autorickshaws or black-yellow cabs.

For them, restrictions on personal cars was a blessing as their supply is rising faster than demand, while customers are lured to the relatively efficient, convenient and honest services from Uber and Ola. It is pertinent to note that while many volunteers preached green wisdom to motorists, these holier-than-thou advocates of car restrictions were never seen preventing devious autorickshaw drivers from overcharging.

Citizens feel cheated, and not just from autorickshaws. Data from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology shows that the hardship from road rationing has not cleaned up the air. Air quality deteriorated sharply as soon as the scheme began and improved noticeably as soon as it ended.

Further, the density of small particles, PM2.5, was consistently above the red line throughout the odd-even phase, but was in the safe limit in the preceding two weeks.

The safe limit for PM2.5 density is 60 mg per cubic metre. During road restrictions, the 24-hour average never fell to that level, but was clearly below that twice in the two weeks before the scheme. It shot up to three-digit levels 13 times in April. Eleven of these days were when half of Delhi’s private vehicles were off the road. The month’s highest PM2.5 density was also recorded while restrictions were enforced.

This is not to suggest that private cars emit oxygen. It merely reinforces what is already obvious to scientists: dust on the roads, two-wheelers and, above all, trucks are much bigger pollutants. Also, the speed and direction of wind is a major factor.

The first round of the experiment in January also found no clear correlation between personal vehicles and pollution despite the fact that this winter, Delhi was decisively warmer than last year, making it more likely for pollutants to disperse. Those who defend the scheme may argue that the weather and wind may have spoilt their party. However, it is difficult to believe that for two weeks in January and two weeks in April, the weather consistently conspired against the scheme. It is more likely that dust particles from Delhi’s streets, Rajasthan’s desert, other towns as well as other factors totally outweigh the impact of cars. The flood of interstate buses with poorly maintained diesel engines also adds to pollution.

Factors other than pollution seem to have influenced the very odd odd-even scheme. The Delhi government exempted ‘women-only’ cars. This means that if a woman is driving a car, road restrictions kick in as soon as a male boards the vehicle. So does the presen- ce of a male passenger add to air pollution? No, it encourages carpooling. Such a condition can only discourage efficient use of resources and help autorickshaws and taxis.

Another strange part of the scheme is that the official announcement can lead one to believe that the highest court of the land has no problems from fumes from a truck’s exhaust. The notification begins saying that the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and the National Green Tribunal have asked for measures to check the alarming level of pollution.

“Therefore,” the Delhi government says, steps are required to “control vehicular pollution caused by non-transport four-wheeled vehicles (motor cars etc)”. Surely, none of the judicial bodies said anything that can be twisted to imply that the judges blame only personal cars for pollution.

Official data shows that air pollution in Delhi often jumped around midnight, or a little before sunrise, and was moderate during the evening rush hour. Trucks would have contributed significantly to this. Therefore, it would be logical to wait for the expressways bypassing Delhi to be completed before taking any more steps to restrict personal cars.

It’s best to avoid rash, whimsical or political steps in the name of pollution, when official data and studies by reputed bodies like the IIT can give a more balanced and rational approach.

So, how can we control air pollution? The courts, the Delhi administration and the central government have tried. None of these efforts has really worked. The only people who actually found the answer are — hold your breath — the Jats.

When the community was agitating, some of its members choked every highway leading to Delhi. That was a rare instance of truck movement in the region — not just the city — grinding to a halt. Those were the days when Delhi’s air quality improved. Of all the measures of a company’s performance, its earnings per share (EPS) may be the most visible. It’s the ‘bottom line’ on a company’s income statement. It’s usually the first or second item in any company press release about quarterly or annual performance. It’s also often a key factor in executive compensation.

But for all the attention EPS receives, it is highly overrated as a barometer of value creation. In fact, over the last 10 years, 36% of large companies with higher-than-average EPS underperformed on average total return to shareholders (TRS). While it’s true that EPS growth and shareholder returns are strongly correlated, executives and naïve investors sometimes take that relationship too seriously.

If improving EPS is good, they assume, then companies should raise it by any means possible. The fallacy is believing that anything that improves EPS will have the same effect on value creation and TRS. On the contrary, the factors that most influence EPS — revenue growth, margin improvement, share repurchases — affect value creation differently. Revenue growth, for example, can raise TRS as long as the organic investments or acquisitions behind it earn more than their cost of capital. Margin improvements, by cutting costs, for instance, can increase TRS as long as they don’t impede future growth by cutting essential investments in R&D or marketing.