Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is recognized as an important tool for addressing residual emissions and achieving net-zero emission targets. While some have cautioned that a focus on CDR in policy processes may lead to delayed efforts to mitigate emissions, others have argued that such concerns are unwarranted. Nevertheless, the circumstances under which CDR could help or delay emissions mitigation in given contexts remain unclear. This paper explores the emerging discourse on CDR in Switzerland. We examined how the CDR community legitimizes CDR and limits its scope, and what the implications are for emissions mitigation. Switzerland is home to growing businesses in CDR and has pioneered the implementation of international offsetting projects under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement. We found that numerous promises help legitimize and attract interest in CDR. Actors use discursive strategies and rules to limit CDR and avoid disappointment in its contribution to climate mitigation. The idea that emission reduction should prevail over removal is promoted accordingly, which ironically helps legitimize the CDR idea yet dodges the question of how much removal is possible and for balancing which emissions. Superficial engagement with the issue is reinforced by the normalization of inflated promises and the sentiment that the mitigation deterrence rhetoric erodes trust in CDR. We argue that this can contribute to mitigation delays by evading the debate on what it is possible to remove and taking resources from alternative measures. We recommend a thorough discussion to examine the risks and the implementation of rules that minimize them.

二氧化碳去除（CDR）被认为是解决残余排放和实现净零排放目标的重要工具。虽然一些人警告说，政策过程中对 CDR 的关注可能会导致减排努力的延迟，但另一些人则认为这种担忧是没有根据的。然而，在特定情况下，CDR 在什么情况下可以帮助或推迟减排仍不清楚。本文探讨了瑞士关于 CDR 的新兴讨论。我们研究了 CDR 社区如何使 CDR 合法化并限制其范围，以及这对减排有何影响。瑞士是 CDR 业务不断增长的发源地，并率先根据《巴黎协定》第 6.2 条实施国际抵消项目。我们发现许多承诺有助于使 CDR 合法化并吸引人们的兴趣。参与者使用话语策略和规则来限制 CDR 并避免其对减缓气候变化的贡献令人失望。相应地，提倡减排应优先于清除的想法，具有讽刺意味的是，这有助于使 CDR 想法合法化，但却回避了可以清除多少以及平衡哪些排放的问题。夸大的承诺正常化以及缓解威慑言论侵蚀了对 CDR 的信任的情绪，强化了对该问题的肤浅接触。我们认为，这可能会回避关于可以消除什么的争论并从替代措施中获取资源，从而导致缓解延迟。我们建议进行彻底的讨论，以检查风险以及最小化风险的规则的实施。