It is widely recognized that changes in climate have an effect on people all around the world.There is also data supporting the claim that people are affected differently based on their ability (or lack thereof) to handle the imposed risks. The degree of ability can also determine whether adaptation and mitigation measures will be successful. This thesis discusses a few climate justice theories and principles to settle on those that can handle the variety in degrees of imposed risks. Arguments against isolated treatment of greenhouse gas emissions are drawn from discussion of the per capita principle. It is also argued that ideas about justice ought to be included into the theories and principles which guide international agreements. It is also shown that the absence of an account of historical responsibility ignores important considerations. Arguments against the rival account of Posner and Weisbach further strengthens the defended view. / Att förändringar i klimatet har påverkan på världens befolkning är välkänt. Det finns även data som bekräftar att människor påverkas i varierande utsträckning på grund av deras möjlighet (eller avsaknad av sådan) att handskas med riskerna som förändringar i klimatet utgör. Faktorer som påverkar dessa möjligheter avgör även framgången av anpassnings- och mildringsåtgärder. Den här uppsatsen behandlar några klimat-rättvise teorier med tillhörande principer för att avgöra vilka på bästa sätt kan ta hänsyn till den varierande graden av utsatthet för de negativa konsekvenserna av klimatförändringar. Argument mot principer som behandlar utsläpps-rätter i isolation visar att ett annat tillvägagångssätt bör anammas. Det argumenteras även för att uppfattningar om generella rättvise-frågor bör integreras. Vidare visas det att ett historisktperspektiv, i form av historisk ansvarsskyldighet, ger stöd till viktiga uppfattningar som inte kan ignoreras. Argument mot den motsatta teoribildningen, som förespråkas av Posner ochWeisbach, styrker det försvarade tillvägagångssättet.

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.