How we talk about climate is almost as important as how we deal with it. How we choose our words, what tactics we use to persuade each other and how we get our points across, it will all influence the choices we make to adapt, mitigate and set rules for dealing with climate change. In the summer of 2019 special rapporteur Philip Alston released his report on climate change and poverty. The report came at around the same time as the newsfeed was filled with images of California’s wildfires burning down neighbourhood after neighbourhood. But the discussion soon turned to debates regarding the use of private firemen to protect the houses of the rich and famous, in other words: the privatization of basic services. In his report Alston warns us about a scenario where the rich can pay their way to safety and the poor must face the consequences of climate change, he named the scenario climate apartheid. The purpose of this essay is to understand what Philip Alston means when he warns of an impending climate apartheid scenario and understand what consequences he sees. The method used to make the study is a critical rhetoric analysis, I have studied the rhetorical strategies Alston have used to try to persuade his readers. I have also used the theory of Yueng Foong Khong of analogies of war to try to understand the analogy of climate apartheid. What is said about climate apartheid is that it threatens the lives and rights of millions of people and it is of most importance that a strong and swift global cooperation is needed to save ourselves and protect the most vulnerable.