or would you want a more efficient process?

Not sure what you're asking - but a large part of the reason that I find capitalism such a bad idea - and particularly the neoliberal private/public version - is that on top of the cost of the capital, you also need to pay out the profit to the parasitic owners.

I'd be very happy with less red tape, of course, provided that it was actually giving effeciency. But most capitalist moves in that direction are actually just increasing externalities - putting the risk on the public to increase private profits.

But my question is about how you would feel about this type of efficiency if the projects benefited society as a whole.

A rational society would have an honest conversation about just how much our environmental impact on our nations and planet should be, and to weigh the cost and benefits of various forms of environmental impact. Everything we do affects the environment in some way. You have to weigh the benefits and drawbacks. You can avoid digging a landfill if you build an incinerator, but then you have to deal with the emissions from the incinerator. Solar panels reduce CO2 emissions, but you have to build a mine to get the materials to build them, and all the damage therein...Vast solar farms in the desert are a great idea, but now you have to build vast new energy transfer infrastructure. That's going to involve tearing down some nature.

How you balance all those? Local damage vs global issues like climate change? Do you try to create some planet-scale ecological model, and have scientists optimize for minimum biodiversity loss? Do you just leave everything up to popular vote? I don't know. Choose your flavor of socialism. But the idea is that the overall human impact on society would be something that is consciously chosen and managed in some rational way other than pure profit.