May 31st - Can 'Decoupling' work?

My head's aching. When a Professor of Sustainable Development who happens to be the UK government's independent adviser on sustainable development, writes a book you can be sure it is going to be full of graphs and pretty complicated ideas. So, having spent some time reading Tim Jackson's 'Prosperity without Growth', it's no surprise that my head is aching.  I must add that, although the subject matter is complex, Tim's style is readable, with no sign of the elitist jargon some academics go in for. He makes a good job of making a complicated subject reasonably understandable. In looking for my simple answer to 'What can we do to change direction?'  my first task is to get to grips with the idea of 'decoupling' which many see as a way forward.  I've tried to break the explanation down:
It's widely agreed that top of the world's list of problems are resource depletion (we're digging up minerals, cutting down trees and using massive amounts of oil and coal at a pretty alarming rate)  and climate change. 
We've been sold the idea that the 'best' way to live is the Western lifestyle based on material consumption. 
We have developed economies which rely on 'growth'  
Growth involves an increasing use of the material resources of the Earth and the burning of climate-changing fossil fuels
'Relative decoupling' means the economy can grow but using less materials and less energy.  Each unit of output uses fewer resources and produces fewer emissions. I guess this involves the re-use of materials,  recycling, domestic and industrial energy saving, electric cars, insulating our houses and the rest
'Relative decoupling' might help us to keep an individual's resource use and carbon emissions down but how is poor old Mother Earth going to cope with 9bn people making demands on natural resources and pouring emissions into the atmosphere. Will need to think about 'absolute decoupling' next.