The general mistrust of Cost/Benefit Analysis

It seems to me that Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis has gotten a bit of a bad name, especially among environmentalists and progressives in general. When an economist *says*: ".... we're going to perform a cost/benefit study....", what the public *hears* is something alone the lines of: "...we're going to write a document which systematically ignores every factor that is really important in life, so that we can provide justification for a project that our masters have already decided to proceed with."

I'm sure that's how Economic Cost/Benefit Analysis often *is*, but it needn't be that way. It *doesn't* have to be dishonest. It *doesn't* have to neglect everything that is good and important in life. The environment can be included. The effects on income distribution can be included. And so on.