The video says more expensive, not banned?

Sounds like more of a political rant to me. 

I did a quick search but couldn't find a credible source for what he is saying.  Perhaps the information is out there, but he isn't giving any of it.

All I could find was the following, from a proposed VOC concentration document from 2013 (document modified in 2019):

"Multi-purpose lubricant

Comment Summary: One association recommended that we adopt CARBs most recent VOC limit for multi-purpose lubricant product category, which is 25%.

Response: We recognize that significant challenges remain in reformulating multi-purpose lubricants to meet a 10% limit and we have modified the limit to 25% (w/w basis)."

 

From a (long) 2019 Canadian govt document (number column on the right is VOC limit):

26	Lubricants, excluding (a) automotive power steering fluids; (b) products designed for use inside power generating motors, engines or turbines and associated power-transfer gearboxes; (c) two-cycle oils and other products that are designed to be added to fuels; and (d) lubricants that are designed solely for releasing manufactured products from moulds	(i) multi-purpose lubricants, excluding (A) solid or semi-solid lubricants; and (B) lubricants that are designed to provide lubricity by depositing a film of solid material (such as graphite, molybdenum disulfide, chemically-related fluoropolymers and boron nitride)	25
		(ii) silicone-based multi-purpose lubricants, excluding solid or semi-solid lubricants,	60
		(iii) penetrating lubricants designed primarily for loosening metal parts that have bonded together,	25
		(iv) aerosol anti-seize lubricant,	40
		(v) non-aerosol anti-seize lubricant,	3
		(vi) aerosol cutting or tapping oil,	25
		(vii) non-aerosol cutting or tapping oil,	3
		(viii) aerosol gear, chain or wire lubricant, excluding lubricant designed solely for use on chains of chain-driven vehicles,	25
		(ix) non-aerosol gear, chain or wire lubricant, excluding lubricant designed solely for use on chains of chain-driven vehicles,	3
		(x) aerosol rust preventative or rust control lubricant,	25
		(xi) non-aerosol rust preventative or rust control lubricant	3

 

 

 

From a letter written by the WD-40 company to the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2015:

"To say we have worked diligently to meet already stringent VOC limits in our products is an
understatement. The time, talent, and treasure incurred to reformulate and launch these
products has been and is significant. Often, the efficacy of our products has suffered. We
have lowered the VOC content for our WD-40 brand from roughly 65% to 50% to the current
25% mandated in California over the past 10-15 years"

 

I'm definitely not an expert, but from here it looks like WD-40 has already been at a 25% VOC content for 10 to 20-ish years, and Canada intends to allow them to keep that formulation.  Not sure what the hype is about.

All I'll say is that the internet is full of "experts" who want to convince you that you should be angry or afraid of something in the future.  You see it more and more nowadays, where somebody puts an idea out there for whatever reason (i.e. personal gain, political purposes, or maybe they just like to see how far it will go) and it will get repeated and repeated until people believe it as fact.  Not sure what is the case here, but until somebody provides credible information proving the banning of these products as he states, I'm not inclined to panic about it.