While Pool & Share potentially works everywhere, Cap & Mutualize is particularly useful for dealing with collective but limited resources that you want to manage in a commons and not trade as a commodity.
Two examples: One on how "cap and trade" is being ignored or undermined and the other one how Cap & Mutualize works Would be great to take a very old one. DB: first example should be a Cap & Mutualize one, not a changing of the topic with a cap and trade example that doesn't work.
We believe that Cap & Mutualize is far superior to and more powerful than the Cap & Trade approach. When markets or bureaucracies use a policy regime that is disconnected from on-the-ground ecological realities -- e.g., ignorant of the actual carrying capacity of an ecosystem or reliant on politically motivated or arbitrary usage caps -- ordinary people will not heed ecological realities and will instead respond to the bureaucratic rules or market signals. A prime example is fishery quotas set by government agencies, which are not respected by fisherpeople and often violated.
discuss this example and also the following elements, which I think contribute to make the distinction in terms of value and philosophy very clear.
# How is this Different from Cap & Trade?
- caps are decided upon directly be the users - mutualizing instead of trading prevents corruption