The speed with which Prime Minister Sunak caved in to pressure to attend the UN’s climate summit can bode only ill for his prospects as premier. We’re among the many who were struck by his good sense in suggesting earlier in the week that he would remain at London to work on top priorities rather than go to Sharm el-Sheikh for the climate-klatch. It, after all, is likely to generate more hot air than Britain’s entire coal industry.

Plus, it was entirely predictable that Mr. Sunak would be met with a backlash when he capitulated to pressure from the left’s ecological militants, who are urging action on what they deem a “planetary emergency.” The new premier felt compelled to toe the line, parroting on Twitter the green catechism: “There is no long-term prosperity without action on climate change,” he says. “There is no energy security without investing in renewables.” 

We’d like to think yet that Mr. Sunak is made of sterner stuff. He had initially vowed to dodge what our Scott Norvell describes as a “United Nations-sponsored gabfest.” The new premier had pointed to the need to focus on “pressing domestic commitments,” chief among them the preparation of a budget at a time when Britain faces the economic debacle that toppled his predecessor, Elizabeth “Liz” Truss. 

Mr. Sunak might have even adopted the contrarian stance of his fellow Tory and ex-cabinet member Jacob Rees-Mogg, who had said he would attend the summit, but only, the Guardian reports, to “tell attendees” that “fracking is green.” That challenge to eco- orthodoxy would have added a heft of heresy to the solemnity of the summit. Yet Mr. Sunak has already jettisoned Ms. Truss’ effort to revive fracking, which would ease Britain’s energy crisis.

Apart from Mr. Sunak’s inability to hold fast to his pledge to sit out the summit, the episode raises concerns about the bigger picture. After all, Mr. Sunak has taken the place of Prime Minister Johnson, who was propelled to power by a landslide electoral victory in 2019 and handed a “colossal mandate” by Britons to “Get Brexit Done.” That means affirming British Independence and escaping the grasp of the European superstate.  

Yet what does the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference represent, if not another multilateral organization with designs to interfere in the domestic affairs of participating nations? What does it say about Mr. Sunak’s commitment to seeing Brexit through, if he appears unable to escape even an obligation to attend an annual conference put on by the UN and its band of climate policy meddlers?  

It didn’t help that Mr. Johnson plans to attend the summit, in what the Guardian calls an effort to “bolster his profile.” The shrewder move in ego management might have been for Mr. Sunak to dub Mr. Johnson his special representative (as FDR did with Willkie). Mr. Johnson then could have worked with Charles III, who reportedly had to be talked out of attending the summit. At last year’s, Charles started talking about spending “trillions.”

Mr. Sunak, meanwhile, says he plans to attend to help “deliver on Glasgow’s legacy of building a secure and sustainable future.” That vacuous vow speaks to the criticism of the summit offered by her whom Mr. Norvell calls the “climate change movement’s chief scold,” Greta Thunberg. She is skipping the summit, dismissing it as an occasion for “greenwashing, lying, and cheating.” Astute for her age. Will Mr. Sunak wise up?