Climate change is often described as a universal crisis, yet its consequences and the capacity to respond to them are profoundly unequal. Contemporary science fiction increasingly imagines futures in which environmental security becomes a commodity accessible primarily to wealthy populations, while vulnerable communities remain exposed to pollution, drought, resource scarcity, extreme weather, and ecological displacement. This article examines Arthur C. Clarke’s The Sands of Mars, Frank Herbert’s Dune, Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy and The Ministry for the Future, Paolo Bacigalupi’s The Water Knife, Octavia E. Butler’s Parable of the Sower, and Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium to study the relationship between environmental inequality, technological privilege, enclosure, and the privatization of survival. Drawing on Rob Nixon’s concept of slow violence, Jason W. Moore’s critique of capitalist ecology, Chris Pak’s scholarship on terraforming, and recent work on climate apartheid, the article distinguishes “ecological apartheid” from the broader category of climate inequality. It proposes ecological apartheid as a literary condition in which access to habitable environments becomes spatially, technologically, and economically segregated. The article argues that science fiction increasingly replaces the idea of a shared ecological catastrophe with divided ecological futures: protected enclaves for privileged populations and degraded environments for those without sufficient economic or technological power. Such narratives demonstrate that the central ecological question of the future is not simply whether humanity can survive environmental crisis, but who will possess the means to survive it safely, comfortably, and with control over the environments in which survival takes place.
