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.