The article that turned me right off from AB, was regarding corporations that were making a green movement (long before green was the "in thing") to better their operations, corp. profile and commitment to the environment. AB thought this was bullshit and the corporation should die. So slam a company for being an evil corporation, but still slam them when they try to make a change? No one changes cold turkey overnight. It takes time (particularly in business), as people are resilient to change. Anyhow, I'm rambling.
Well, I bet the article was week but the term "greenwashing" is used when say, a high profile chemical/oil/coal company puts a "green face" on what are still destructive processes.
This can take the form of green themed ads (think about the "clean" coal ads), token donations to green organizations (but watch out, some of these orgs are really just green-named industry associations) etc.
There's a legitimate complaint to be made about the degree to which a company's green face mismatches with its practises.
A good antidote to this is the GRI: http://www.globalreporting.org/Home
Which is basically designed along the lines of financial reporting, but for environmental/sustainability issues. The idea is to get companies on board with taking their environmental reporting as seriously as financial reporting.
Its a baby-step in the right direction.
Anyway, given the quality of Adbuster's writing I'm sure the article was a little knee-jerk - there's better criticisms out there of "greenwashing" and I do think its a legitimate issue to talk about.