Introduction In recent years, climate change has become the most urgent global environmental issue. In the current debate over global climate change, arguments advanced by different social groups typically combine multiple discourses and meanings, including those of science, economic, ethics, and governance, frequently making these arguments difficult for the public to understand and assess. With a view to untangling some of the complexity of climate-change argumentation, the proposed paper presents a rhetoric analysis of the use of economic discourse in the climate-change controversy. There have been a number of studies investigating the discourse employed in the climate- change debate; for instance, researchers have used discourse analysis to address problems about the global environmental issues in different disciplines such as Political Science, Economics, Geography, Communication, and Sociology among others. For example, Livesey (2002, p. 117) has examined corporate discourse from the perspectives of Burke’s new rhetorical theories and Foucauldian discourse-analytic theory. Smart (2011) has studied the arguments advanced by a range of different organizations, identifying two opposing ‘discourse coalitions’ (Hajer, 1995, p. 156) – a ‘climate-change crisis discourse coalition’ and a ‘climate-crisis skepticism coalition’ – and describing the macro-argument advanced by each of these groups. Some researchers have employed Hajer’s concept of discourse coalition to study political policies, geography or international relations in related with climate change, however, little or no research has looked specifically at the rhetorical functions of economic discourse in the debate over climate change. Accordingly, the proposed paper will focus on the different ways in which economic discourse is employed rhetorically by various social groups in advancing arguments on the reality, consequences, and policy implications of global climate change. This study is guided by the following question How do different social actors rhetorically write economic discourse that focus on government policies about climate change? What kinds of rhetorical devices are used in their persuasive writing? Literature Review Ethos, Logos and Pathos Aristotle’s notion of how a speaker can effectively persuade and appeal to the audience was by ethos, logos and pathos. Logos appeal to the sense of reason or argument of the speaker on an issue. Ethos, on the other hand, appeal to the speaker’s or writers owns character or the credibility of his/her argument. In contrast, pathos appeal to sympathy and emotions, values as well as the beliefs of the audience. Metaphors Metaphors were originally considered rhetorical devices. Plato abhorred the use of metaphors arguing that they can persuade a person to be illogical. Schon (1993) reasons, at that time “metaphors were considered harmful to the growth of language and meaning” (p. 45). However, according to Lakoff (1979), metaphors are important items of comparison. He argues, “Words only tell us what we already know, metaphors tell us what is new” (p.71). Lakoff and Johnson studied the use of metaphors in common language. They argue that metaphors can s