Republicans are ‘red-baiting’ red states over climate bill

Let’s say you’re a Republican, reading your internets. What would it mean to you to read this sentence, coming from the Republican Party: “Based on the allowance allocation formula in H.R. 2454 for electricity consumers, the red states will not have enough allowances…”
The climate bill is catching it from both sides today, but House Republicans put together the best graphic attack: a sly map to motivate their base. A Consumer Allocation Map released by the Republican Caucus tonight paints those states red that it claims will face increased energy costs, and it paints those states green that will benefit. Fair enough: red means shortfall, green means money. And maybe it’s just an oversight that the phrase used to identify the shortfall states evolves from “the red-colored states” to “the red states” to just plain “red states.”
Based on the allowance allocation formula in H.R. 2454 for electricity consumers, the red states will not have enough allowances to cover their emissions from electricity generation. The shortfall in allowances to the red states will lead to higher electricity costs for consumers, the total of which will roughly correlate with the dollar losses noted on the map. For example, Texas electricity consumers will see electricity costs go up by roughly $1 billion. To make up the shortfall, red states will have to seek high-cost, non-CO2 emitting electricity sources, reduce electricity production and consumption, or purchase allowances from the green states, or purchase domestic and international offsets, likely a combination of the three.
Is it a new meaning for “red-baiting,” a clever way to assert that the Climate Bill rewards big Democratic strongholds, like California and New York, at the expense of “Real America”? Or is it a subconscious preview of an electoral map the GOP would love to see in 2012?
UPDATE: The map circulated by the House Republican Caucus is a version of a map produced by the National Mining Association. Kate Shepperd traced it to the source, and you can follow her roundabout journey at Grist.org. Unlike the page distributed by the House Republican Caucus, the National Mining Association’s document includes a disclaimer stating that it does not accurately represent the projected costs of the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill.