Wired has a balanced look at the controversy around the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” climate change bill passed last week by the House: Update: Climate Bill Clears House by Narrow Margin.

Commonly referred to as the Waxman-Markey bill, after the original Democratic sponsors Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachussets, the legislation has been the subject of aggressive attacks by both right- and left-wing groups.

Right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation say the bill will cripple the American economy. They point out that the bill will effectively raise the price of carbon, and because the vast majority of our electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, the cost of electricity is likely to rise, at least in the near-term.

Left-leaning environmental groups say the bill doesn’t go nearly far enough to combat climate change, particularly in the next decade. They also aren’t happy that the utilities will receive their carbon permits for free. Many were pushing for 100 percent auctions, with the money refunded to taxpayers or used to support alternative energy R&D.

While both sides seem to have very specific projections about the costs of the bill 10 years in the future, all numbers should be viewed skeptically. It’s very difficult to predict what the price of fossil fuels will be three years out, let alone 10. For example, if global oil and natural gas prices spike — and this bill has generated substantial investments in alternatives — then it will seem like a great idea, regardless of the legislation’s impact on the country’s carbon dioxide emissions.

That level of uncertainty could be carried across the rest of the bill. One major argument in favor of passing the climate bill is that it will make international climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year easier. If the U.S. is leading on the issue, China and India could institute greenhouse gas curbs of their own.